http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651315X688091 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev.

, 2015, 59, (3), 174–181

JOHNSON MATTHEY
TECHNOLOGY REVIEW www.technology.matthey.com

Selected Electrical Resistivity Values for the

Platinum Group of Metals Part I: Palladium and
Platinum
Improved values obtained for liquid phases of palladium and platinum

John W. Arblaster The measured electrical resistivity (ρ) usually consists

Wombourne, West Midlands, UK of a temperature dependent intrinsic resistivity, ρi,
which is due to the pure metal and is caused by the
Email: jwarblaster@yahoo.co.uk scattering of the charge carriers (electrons or holes)
by phonons (quantised vibrations of the lattice) and by
their collisions with each other, and a residual resistivity
Electrical resistivity values for both the solid and liquid (ρ0) due to impurities which also scatter the carriers and
phases of the platinum group metals (pgms) palladium increase the resistivity. The quantity ρ0 is considered to
and platinum are evaluated. In particular improved be a summation of the effects of different impurities and
values are obtained for the liquid phases of these is also considered to be temperature independent. The
metals. Previous reviews on electrical resistivity which two contributions to the total resistivity are combined
included evaluations for the pgms included those of according to Matthiessen’s Rule: ρ = ρ0 + ρi and because
Meaden (1), Bass (2), Savitskii et al. (3) and Binkele ρ0 may vary from sample to sample then attempts are
and Brunen (4) as well as individual reviews by Matula made to evaluate values of ρi which should be universal
(5) on palladium and White (6) on platinum. for a specific metal.

1.1 Correction for Thermal Expansion Effects

1. Introduction
In order to obtain a reference value to which all other
Electrical resistivity (ρ) is defined in terms of the measurements are adjusted the electrical resistivity is
International System of Units (SI units) as: evaluated at 273.15 K (0ºC).
In the low temperature region below about 30 K the
ρ=RA/l (i)
resistivity can be represented by ρ = ρ0 + A T2 + B T5
where where the temperature dependent terms represent
R is the electrical resistance of a uniform specimen of the intrinsic resistivity, whilst up to room temperature
material in ohms (Ω) the experimental values are generally given in such
A is the cross-sectional area of the specimen in square a form that interpolation can be achieved by using
metres (m2) simple polynomials rather than using the complicated
l is the length of the specimen in metres (m) Bloch-Grüneisen formula (7–9). In the definition
The units of ρ are therefore Ω m although practically of resistivity as ρ = R A / l then A and l are usually
the most useful units are μΩ cm. measured at room temperature and therefore at different

174 © 2015 Johnson Matthey

http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651315X688091 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2015, 59, (3)

temperatures both A and l have to be corrected for have been superseded by the later high precision
thermal expansion effects. It is found below room measurements of Williams and Weaver (15) (0 K–300 K)
temperature that for the level of accuracy given for ρ, and Khellar and Vuillemin (16) (17 K–300 K), with the
thermal expansion corrections are generally negligible latter given only in the form of an equation which was
but at higher temperature the measurements have to evaluated at 17 K and then at 10 K intervals from 20 K
be corrected, especially if they are based entirely on to 270 K. The measurements of Williams and Weaver
the room temperature values for A and l which are were interpolated above 100 K so as to also obtain a
usually measured at 293.15 K, the accepted reference full evaluation at 10 K intervals from 20 K to 270 K.
temperature for length change measurements: The measurements of Schriempf and of Williams and
Weaver agree satisfactorily and were averaged to 10 K
ρ (corrected) = ρ (uncorrected) [(AT / A293.15) × (l293.15 / lT)] (ii)
with the measurements of Williams and Weaver being
extended to 16 K. The measurements of the latter
= ρ (uncorrected) [1 + (lT – l293.15) / l293.15] (iii)
and of Khellar and Vuillemin do not agree below 35 K.
where Equation (iii) can be considered to be a close However the equation of Khellar and Vuillemin showed
approximation of Equation (ii). However since 273.15 K peculiar behaviour below this temperature with derived
is the actual reference temperature then corrected values being 6% higher than those of Williams and
values of ρ(T) should be further corrected for thermal Weaver at 17 K but 31% lower at 20 K. Therefore the
expansion from 293.15 K to 273.15 K. Since this latter measurements were given preference up to 35 K.
correction is usually negligible at the level of accuracy At this temperature and above values from the two sets
given then it is not applied. of measurements were averaged. Overall agreement
In the case of rapid pulse heating to high temperatures, is to within 0.5% between 60 K and 180 K and to within
because of inertia l generally is unaltered and it is A 0.1% above 180 K. The selected values of Matula
that changes. If D is the diameter of the wire then: below 273.15 K are based on a combination of the
measurements of White and Woods and of Laubitz and
ρ (T) = ρ (measured) (DT2 / D293.152) = ρ (measured) (VT / V293.15)
Matsumura and on average the intrinsic values show a
(iv)
bias of 0.02 μΩ cm above the more recently selected
where VT is the volume of the sample at temperature values. Other measurements in the low temperature
T and V293.15 is the volume at 293.15 K. These are region were discussed by Matula.
essentially DT2 and D293.152 respectively since l is In the high temperature region Matula (5) selected
assumed to be unaltered. only the measurements of Laubitz and Matsumura (14)
(90 K–1300 K). After correction for ρ0 = 0.020 μΩ cm
2. Palladium the values were calculated at 50 K intervals from 350 to
1300 K. In the present evaluation these measurements
Palladium has a face-centred cubic structure and were combined with the more recent measurements of
the melting point is a secondary fixed point on the Khellaf et al. (18) (295 K–1700 K) which were given in
International Temperature Scale of 1990 (ITS-90) at the form of an equation which was also evaluated at
1828.0 ± 0.1 K (10). 50 K intervals but over the range 350 K to 1750 K. After
correction of both sets of measurements for thermal
2.1 Solid expansion using the values selected by the present
Electrical resistivity values for solid palladium at author (19) they were fitted to Equation (v) which
273.15 K are given in Table I. The selected value is an has an overall accuracy as a standard deviation of
average of the last three determinations. The ρ0 correction ± 0.13 μΩ cm. The two sets of measurements show
to the measurement of Laubitz and Matsumura (14) a maximum disagreement of 1.0% at 1300 K. The
was suggested by Matula (5) who also appears to have equation was extrapolated to the melting point and
selected this value as the reference value. selected values are given in Table II.
From 71 data sets for solid palladium Matula (5) Measurements of Milošević and Babić (20)
selected only the measurements of Schriempf (17) (250 K–1800 K) were independently corrected for
(1.6 K–10.6 K), White and Woods (13) (10 K–295 K) and thermal expansion. Their equation differs from the
Laubitz and Matsumura (14) (90 K–1300 K). However selected equation sinusoidally by trending from initially
it is considered that the values of White and Woods 0.3% high to 1.7% high at 400 K to 0.9% low at 1400 K

175 © 2015 Johnson Matthey

http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651315X688091 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2015, 59, (3)

Table I Electrical Resistivity of Palladium at 273.15 K

ρi,
Authors Ref. Temperature of data
μΩ cm
Powell et al. 11 9.79 At 273.15 K. Corrected for ρ0 0.144 μΩ m
Powell et al. 12 9.75 Interpolated 200 – 400 K. Corrected for ρ0 0.143 μΩ m
White and Woods 13 9.70 At 273.15 K. Average of three samples
Laubitz and Matsumura 14 9.760 Interpolated 250–300 K. Corrected for ρ0 0.020 μΩ m
Williams and Weaver 15 9.751 At 273.15 K. Corrected for ρ0 0.007 μΩ m
Khellar and Vuillemin 16 9.765 Calculated. Fit 17–300 K
Selected 9.76 ± 0.01 At 273.15 K

Table II Intrinsic Electrical Resistivity of Palladium

Temperature, ρi, Temperature, ρi, Temperature, ρi,
K μΩ cm K μΩ cm K μΩ cm
Solid
5 0.0008 140 4.36 400 14.47
10 0.0038 150 4.79 500 17.92
15 0.011 160 5.21 600 21.14
20 0.028 170 5.63 700 24.15
25 0.061 180 6.04 800 26.96
30 0.113 190 6.45 900 29.59
35 0.189 200 6.86 1000 32.03
40 0.294 210 7.26 1100 34.30
45 0.420 220 7.66 1200 36.42
50 0.566 230 8.06 1300 38.39
60 0.908 240 8.46 1400 40.23
70 1.29 250 8.85 1500 41.95
80 1.71 260 9.25 1600 43.55
90 2.14 270 9.64 1700 45.05
100 2.59 273.15 9.76 1800 46.46
110 3.04 280 10.02 1828 46.84
120 3.48 290 10.41
130 3.92 300 10.79
Liquid
1828 81.4 2200 82.2 2700 83.3
1850 81.5 2300 82.4 2800 83.5
1900 81.6 2400 82.6 2900 83.7
2000 81.8 2500 82.8
2100 82.0 2600 83.1

176 © 2015 Johnson Matthey

http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651315X688091 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2015, 59, (3)

to 0.4% high at 1800 K. Figure 1 shows the deviations Löffler (23) (295 K–1100 K) were corrected from
of the selected values of Matula (which are considered RT/R295 to RT/R273.15 and were also corrected for thermal
as incorporating the measurements of Laubitz and expansion. On this basis the differences reached
Matsumura) and the experimental values of Khellaf a maximum of 4.1% high at 450 K but then showed
et al. and Milošević and Babić from the fitted curve. some scatter varying between 1.0% low at 800 K and
Measurements of Binkele and Brunen (4) (273–1423 K) 1.6% high at 1100 K. Figure 2 shows the deviations of
which were also independently corrected for thermal these three sets of measurements from the fitted curve
expansion, showed systematic biases of 1.3% high for where the resistivity ratios of García and Löffler were
runs 1 and 2 and 1.7% high for run 3. converted to electrical resistivity values for comparison
purposes.

2 2.2 Liquid
Ref. (5) Electrical resistivity values for palladium at the melting
1.5
Ref. (18)
point are given in Table III. In the liquid state neither
Ref. (20)
1 Dupree et al. (24) (1832 K–1924 K) nor Güntherodt
Deviation, %

et al. (25) (1864 K–2019 K) obtained evidence for

0.5
any variation of resistivity with temperature. Although
0 Seydel and Fischer (26) (1825 K–3000 K) did obtain
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
evidence of such a variation, the values of Pottlacher
–0.5 Temperature, K
(22) (1828 K–2900 K) were selected and fitted to
–1
7
–1.5
6 Ref. (21)
Fig. 1. Solid palladium – percentage deviations from Ref. (23)
selected curve 5
Ref. (22)
Deviation, %

4
3
Also in the high temperature region there are a
number of other measurements which were published 2

after the review of Matula. After correction for thermal 1

expansion (19) the electrical resistivity measurements 0
of Miiller and Cezairliyan (21) (1400 K–1800 K) trend 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900
Temperature, K
from 4.0% to 6.9% high whilst the measurement of
Pottlacher (22) at the melting point is 5.9% high. Fig. 2. Solid palladium – percentage deviations from
selected curve
Resistivity ratio measurements of García and

Table III Differences Between the Solid and Liquid Electrical Resistivity of Palladium at the Melting Point
ρS, ρL,
Authors Reference ρL /ρS Notes
μΩ cm μΩ cm
Dupree et al. 24 (48.8) 83.0 1.700 (a)
Güntherodt et al. 25 47.3 78.8 1.666
Seydel and Fischer 26 50.2 79.1 1.576
Khellaf et al. 18 (45.2) 77.3 1.710 (b)
Pottlacher 22 49.6 81.4 1.641
Present assessment – 46.84 81.4 1.738
Notes to Table III
(a) Solid value based on (ρL – ρS)/ ρS = 0.70 ± 0.05
(b) Solid value based on ρL /ρS = 1.71

177 © 2015 Johnson Matthey

http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651315X688091 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2015, 59, (3)

Equation (vi) with selected values for the electrical Rosso (27) (1000 K–2000 K), Laubitz and van der
resistivity of the liquid and are also given in Table II. Meer (28) (300 K–1500 K), and Flynn and O’Hagan (29)
(273 K–1373 K) and the resistance ratios of Roeser (30)
3. Platinum (73 K–1773 K) and Kraftmakher (31) (1000 K–2000 K)
together with resistivity measurements given by Martin
Platinum has a face-centred cubic structure and the et al. (32) (300 K–1200 K). White fitted all selected
melting point is a secondary fixed point on ITS-90 at values from 100 K to 2000 K to Equation (vii) which
2041.3 ± 0.4 K (10). was extrapolated to the melting point. Differences
between values derived from this equation and the
3.1 Solid tabulated values of White as given in Table IV do not
The resistance ratio of platinum, W T = RT/R 273.15, forms exceed 0.01 μΩ cm. An abridged version of the values
the basis of the International Temperature Scale which for the solid phase as given in Table IV was originally
White (6) extended to 1300 K and calculated values given in Platinum Metals Review by Corti (33).
of intrinsic resistivity using the fixed reference value of For comparison between these measurements
9.82 ± 0.01 μΩ cm at 273.15 K. Above 1300 K White and the selected values as given in Figure 3, the
combined the selected values to this temperature with resistivity ratios of Roeser (30) and Kraftmakher (31)
the electrical resistivity measurements of Righini and were converted to electrical resistivity values and all

Table IV Intrinsic Electrical Resistivity of Platinum

Temperature, ρi, Temperature, ρi, Temperature, ρi,
K μΩ cm K μΩ cm K μΩ cm

Solid

10 0.0026 150 4.89 500 18.45

15 0.0119 160 5.30 600 22.07
20 0.0367 170 5.70 700 25.59
25 0.0855 180 6.11 800 29.00
30 0.163 190 6.52 900 32.29
35 0.270 200 6.92 1000 35.47
40 0.403 210 7.32 1100 38.54
45 0.560 220 7.72 1200 41.50
50 0.734 230 8.12 1300 44.35
60 1.12 240 8.51 1400 47.09
70 1.53 250 8.91 1500 49.74
80 1.95 260 9.30 1600 52.34
90 2.38 270 9.70 1700 54.93
100 2.80 273.15 9.82 1800 57.51
110 3.23 280 10.09 1900 60.11
120 3.65 290 10.48 2000 62.76
130 4.06 300 10.87 2041.3 63.87
140 4.48 400 14.71

Liquid

2041.3 102.8 2300 105.3 2700 109.1

2050 102.9 2400 106.2 2800 110.1
2100 103.4 2500 107.2 2900 111.1
2200 104.3 2600 108.2

178 © 2015 Johnson Matthey

 http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651315X688091 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2015, 59, (3)

1 In the case of additional electrical resistivity

Ref. (4), runs 1 and 5
Ref. (4), runs 2, 3 and 4
measurements of Birkele and Brunen (4) (273–1497 K),
0.8 combined runs 1 and 5 trend from initially 0.8% high
Ref. (28)
0.6 Ref. (29) to 0.1% high at 1200 K to 0.4% high at 1373 K whilst
combined runs 2, 3 and 4 trend to an average of 0.5%
0.4 low above 1000 K. These trends are also shown in
Figure 3.
0.2
Electrical resistivity measurements of Pottlacher (22)
Deviation, %

0 (473 K–1573 K and 1740 K–2042 K in the solid range)

300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500
Temperature, K are initially 1% higher then trend to an average of 3%
–0.2
higher between 900 and 1573 K before trending to
–0.4 1.2% higher and then to 0.5% higher between 1740
K and the melting point. These differences are also
–0.6
shown in Figure 5.
–0.8

Fig. 3. Solid platinum – percentage deviations from selected 3.5

curve
3

2.5 Ref. (27)

measurements except those of Flynn and O’Hagan Ref. (22), run 1
2
Deviation, %

(29) were corrected for thermal expansion using values Ref. (22), run 2
1.5
selected by the present author (34). In addition the
measurements of Martin et al. (32) were corrected to 1
correspond to the selected electrical resistivity value at 0.5
273.15 K. Because of their larger deviations values of 0
Righini and Rosso (27) are compared with the selected 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100
Temperature, K
values in Figure 4.
Fig. 5. Solid platinum – percentage deviations from selected
curve

0.6
3.2 Liquid
Ref. (30)
0.4 Ref. (31) Electrical resistivity values of platinum at the
Ref. (32) melting point are given in Table V. In the liquid state
0.2 electrical resistivity measurements of Pottlacher (22)
(2042 K–2900 K) were selected as Equation (viii)
Deviation, %

since in the overlap region they are closely

0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 confirmed by measurements of Gathers et al. (36)
Temperature, K (2100 K–7300 K) obtained at a pressure of 0.3 GPa
–0.2 which trend from 0.5% low at 2100 K to 1.0% high at
2900 K. Measurements of Hixson and Winkler (37)
–0.4 (2042 K–5100 K) are initially 7% low at the melting
point and trend 1% low to 1% high between 2100 K
and 2900 K but above 3000 K, in direct comparison
–0.6
with the measurements of Gathers et al., the trend
is to an average of 2% low. Selected values for the
Fig. 4. Solid platinum – percentage deviations from selected
curve electrical resistivity of liquid platinum from the melting
point to 2900 K are also given in Table IV.

179 © 2015 Johnson Matthey

http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651315X688091 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2015, 59, (3)

Table V Differences Between the Solid and Liquid Electrical Resistivity of Platinum at the Melting Point
ρS, ρL,
Authors Reference ρL /ρS
μΩ cm μΩ cm

Martynyuk and Tsapkov 35 62.1 92.6 1.491

Pottlacher 22 64.2 102.8 1.601

Present assessment – 63.87 102.8 1.610

High Temperature Intrinsic Resistivity of Solid Palladium (273.15 to 1828 K)

ρi (μΩ cm) = 4.58639 × 10–2 T – 1.39098 × 10–5 T 2 + 1.84118 × 10–9 T 3 – 1.76742 (v)

Intrinsic Resistivity of Liquid Palladium (1828 to 2900 K)

ρi (μΩ cm) = 2.058 × 10–3 T + 77.7 (vi)
Intrinsic Resistivity of Solid Platinum (100 to 2041.3 K)
ρi (μΩ cm) = 4.681197 × 10–2 T – 3.258075 × 10–5 T 2 + 8.554023 × 10–8 T 3
– 1.594242 × 10–10 T 4 + 1.837342 × 10–13 T 5 – 1.316886 × 10–16 T 6
+ 5.678222 × 10–20 T 7 – 1.340980 × 10–23 T 8 + 1.329896 × 10–27 T 9
– 1.621733 (vii)
Intrinsic Resistivity of Liquid Platinum (2041.3 to 2900 K)
ρi (μΩ cm) = 9.604 × 10–3 T + 83.2 (viii)

References 4. L. Binkele and M. Brunen, “Thermal Conductivity,

Electrical Resistivity and Lorentz Function Data
1. G. T. Meadon, “Electrical Resistance of Metals”, for Metallic Elements in the Range 273 to 1500 K”,
Plenum Press, New York, USA, 1965 Forschungszentrum Jülich, Institut für Werkstoffe der
2. J. Bass, ‘Electrical Resistivity of Pure Metals and Energietechnik, Zentralbibliothek, Germany, 1994
Dilute Alloys’, in “Electrical Resistivity, Kondo
5. R. A. Matula, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, 1979, 8,
and Spin Fluctuation Systems, Spin Glasses and
(4), 1147
Thermopower”, eds. K.-H. Hellwege and J. L. Olsen,
Landolt-Börnstein Numerical Data and Functional 6. G. K. White, ‘Recommended Values of Electrical
Relationships in Science and Technology, New Resistivity and Thermal Conductivity of Platinum’, in
Series, Group III: Crystal and Solid State Physics, “Thermal Conductivity 17”, Gaithersburg, Maryland,
Vol. 15a, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New USA, 15th–19th June, 1981, Proceedings of the
York, 1982, p. 1 Seventeenth International Thermal Conductivity
Conference, ed. J. G. Hust, Purdue Research
3. A. Andryushchenko, Yu. D. Chistyakov, A. P. Dostanko,
Foundation, Plenum Press, New York, USA, 1983,
T. L. Evstigneeva, E. V. Galoshina, A. D. Genkin,
p. 95
N. B. Gorina, V. M. Gryaznov, G. S. Khayak, M. M.
Kirillova, E. I. Klabunovskii, A. A. Kuranov, V. L. Lisin, 7. F. Bloch, Z. Physik, 1929, 52, (7–8), 555
V. M. Malyshev, V. A. Matveev, V. A. Mityushov, L. V. 8. F. Bloch, Z. Physik, 1930, 59, (3–4), 208
Nomerovannaya, V. P. Polyakova, M. V. Raevskaya,
9. E. Grüneisen, Ann. Phys., 1933, 408, (5), 530
D. V. Rumyantsev, E. I. Rytvin, N. M. Sinitsyn, A.
M. Skundin, E. M. Sokolovskaya, I. P. Starchenko, 10. R. E. Bedford, G. Bonnier, H. Maas and F. Pavese,
N. I. Timofeyev, N. A. Vatolin, L. I. Voronova and V. Metrologia, 1996, 33, (2), 133
E. Zinov’yev, “Blagorodnye Metally, Spravochnik” 11. R. W. Powell, R. P. Tye and M. J. Woodman, Platinum
(“Handbook of Precious Metals”), ed. E. M. Savitskii, Metals Rev., 1962, 6, (4), 138
Metallurgiya Publishers, Moscow, Russia, 1984 (in
12. R. W. Powell, R. P. Tye and M. J. Woodman, J. Less
Russian); English translation by S. N. Gorin, P. P.
Common Met., 1967, 12, (1), 1
Pozdeev, B. A. Nikolaev and Yu. P. Liverov, English
Edition, ed. A. Prince, Hemisphere Publishing Corp, 13. G. K. White and S. B. Woods, Phil. Trans. R. Soc.
New York, USA, 1989 Lond. A, 1959, 251, (995), 273

180 © 2015 Johnson Matthey

http://dx.doi.org/10.1595/205651315X688091 Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev., 2015, 59, (3)

14. M. J. Laubitz and T. Matsumura, Can. J. Phys., 1972, 26. U. Seydel and U. Fischer, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys.,
50, (3), 196 1978, 8, (7), 1397

15. R. K. Williams and F. J. Weaver, Phys. Rev. B, 1982, 27. F. Righini and A. Rosso, High Temp.-High Pressures,
25, (6), 3663 1980, 12, (3), 335
28. M. J. Laubitz and M. P. Van Der Meer, Can. J. Phys.,
16. A. Khellar and J. J. Vuillemin, J. Phys.: Condens.
1966, 44, (12), 66
Matter, 1992, 4, (7), 1757
29. D. R. Flynn and M. E. O’Hagan, J. Res. Natl. Bur.
17. J. T. Schriempf, Phys. Rev. Lett., 1968, 20, (19), 1034 Stand., 1967, C71, (4), 255
18. A. Khellaf, R. M. Emrick and J. J. Vuillemin, J. Phys. F: 30. W. Roeser, “Temperature: Its Measurement and
Met. Phys., 1987, 17, (10), 2081 Control in Science and Industry”, ed. M. S. van Dusen,
Vol. I, Reinhold Publishing Corp, New York, USA,
19. J. W. Arblaster, Platinum Metals Rev., 2012, 56,
1941, p. 1312
(3), 181
31. Ya. A. Kraftmakher, High Temp.-High Pressures,
20. N. Milošević and M. Babić, Int. J. Mater. Res., 2013,
1973, 5, (4), 433
104, (5), 462
32. J. J. Martin, P. H. Sidles and G. C. Danielson, J. Appl.
21. A. P. Miiller and A. Cezairliyan, Int. J. Thermophys.,
Phys., 1967, 38, (8), 3075
1980, 1, (2), 217
33. C. W. Corti, Platinum Metals Rev., 1984, 28, (4), 164
22. G. Pottlacher, “High Temperature Thermophysical
Properties of 22 Pure Metals”, Edition Keiper, Graz, 34. J. W. Arblaster, Platinum Metals Rev., 1997, 41, (1), 12
Austria, 2010, p. 76 35. M. M. Martynyuk and V. I. Tsapkov, Fiz. Metal.
23. E. Y. García and D. G. Löffler, J. Chem. Eng. Data, Metalloved., 1974, 37, (1), 49; translated into English
1985, 30, (3), 304 in Phys. Met. Metallogr., 1974, 37, (1), 40
24. B. C. Dupree, J. B. Van Zytveld and J. E. Enderby, J. 36. G. R. Gathers, J. W. Shaner and W. M. Hodgson, High
Phys. F: Met. Phys., 1975, 5, (11), L200 Temp.-High Pressures, 1979, 11, (5), 529
25. H.-J. Güntherodt, E. Hauser, H. U. Künzi and R. 37. R. S. Hixson and M. A. Winkler, Int. J. Thermophys.,
Müller, Phys. Lett. A., 1975, 54, (4), 291 1993, 14, (3), 409

The Author
John W. Arblaster is interested in the history of science and the evaluation of the thermodynamic and
crystallographic properties of the elements. Now retired, he previously worked as a metallurgical
chemist in a number of commercial laboratories and was involved in the analysis of a wide range
of ferrous and non-ferrous alloys.

181 © 2015 Johnson Matthey