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
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.
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 DR4.5), but poor for [TMGH]OAc (only DR1.2).”
The corrected Table 2 is as follows:
Spinning solvent | d 0 [μm] | T extr [°C] | T bath [°C] | D Rmax | Titer [dtex] | Tenacity [cN tex−1] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
d 0, 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:
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 |