Open Access Article
This Open Access Article is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence

Correction: Cellulose regeneration and spinnability from ionic liquids

Lauri K. J. Hauru, Michael Hummel, Kaarlo Nieminen, Anne Michud and Herbert Sixta*
Department of Forest Products Technology, Aalto University, School of Chemical Engineering, P. O. Box 16300, 00076 Aalto, Espoo, Finland. E-mail: herbert.sixta@aalto.fi

Received 31st May 2017 , Accepted 31st May 2017

First published on 14th June 2017


Correction for ‘Cellulose regeneration and spinnability from ionic liquids’ by Lauri K. J. Hauru et al., Soft Matter, 2016, 12, 1487–1495.


For the spinning system, the manufacturer's software reported an incorrect extrusion flow rate ve (ml min−1) when using the smaller cylinder. Thus, the error only affects [DBNH]OAc and [TMGH]OAc; NMMO and [emim]OAc data remains intact. The correct values for ve may be obtained by multiplying the reported ve with 1/0.6. As DR is determined from ve, it is also affected: to obtain correct DR, multiply the reported DR with 0.6. The extrusion velocities (ve) and draw ratios (DR) reported for [DBNH]OAc and [TMGH]OAc in the main text are modified as follows:
ve [ml min−1] DR
Reported Correct Reported Correct
0.02 0.033 1.0 0.6
0.04 0.067 2.0 1.2
    7.5 4.5
    12.5 7.5

In the section “Practical spinning”, the sentence beginning “Spinnability was good…” should be modified as follows:

“Spinnability was good for [DBNH]OAc (up to DR 4.5), but poor for [TMGH]OAc (only DR 1.2).”

The corrected Table 2 is as follows:

Table 1 Highest draw ratios obtained in spinning experiments
Spinning solvent d0 [μm] Textr [°C] Tbath [°C] DRmax Titer [dtex] Tenacity [cN tex−1]
d0, spinneret diameter; Textr, extrusion temperature; Tbath, regeneration bath temperature; DRmax, highest draw ratio spun.
[DBNH]OAc 100 70 15 4.5 3.0 ± 0.9 38.5 ± 8.4
NMMO·H2O 100 95 15 6.2 3.7 ± 0.7 31.2 ± 6.6
[TMGH]OAc 100 80 15 1.2 15.5 ± 0.9 10.9 ± 1.1
[emim]OAc 250 90 45 2.9 44.4 ± 1.7 13.9 ± 1.6


Modified Fig. 8 and 9 are as follows:


image file: c7sm90096a-f8.tif
Fig. 8 Final fiber birefringence vs. draw ratio in spinning.

image file: c7sm90096a-f9.tif
Fig. 9 Dry to wet modulus ratio of final fibers vs. draw ratio in spinning.

The conclusions remain intact. The lower draw ratio exhibited by [TMGH]OAc solutions (1.2 instead of 2.0) actually adds credence to the stated conclusions about [TMGH]OAc. For [DBNH]OAc, the lower draw ratio is not an issue, since it is known from the outset that a monofilament system is suboptimal and better results can be obtained with a multifilament system.

The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2017