Open Access Article
This Open Access Article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence
Retraction: Selective uptake of uranium, plutonium and americium on hydrogen titanate nanotubes
Chayan Banerjeea,
Nilesh Dudwadkara,
Subhash Chandra Tripathi*a,
Pritam Maniklal Gandhia,
Chetan Prakash Kaushikb,
Sriparna Chaterjeed,
Pushan Ayyube and
Avesh Kumar Tyagi*c
aFuel Reprocessing Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai 400 085, India. E-mail: sctri001@gmail.com; Fax: +91 22 2550 5151; Tel: +91 22 2550 5330
bWaste Management Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai 400 085, India
cChemistry Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai 400 085, India. E-mail: aktyagi@barc.gov.in
dDepartment of Colloids and Materials Chemistry, CSIR Institute of Minerals and Materials Technology, Bhubaneswar, 751013, India
eTata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai 400 005, India
First published on 7th December 2016
Abstract
Retraction of ‘Selective Uptake of Uranium, Plutonium and Americium on Hydrogen Titanate Nanotubes’ by Chayan Banerjee et al., RSC Adv., 2014, DOI: 10.1039/c3ra42548g.
We the authors wholly retract this RSC Advances article. We identified some errors in the data reported in Fig. 10 and 11, and Table 1 during the proof reading stage. We notified the Editorial Office requesting the deletion of Fig. 11, and the replacement of Fig. 10 and Table 1 with the revised figure and table below.
 | ||
| Fig. 10 Langmuir isotherms for H+ ↔ Mn+ exchange. | ||
| Tracer | Q° (mol g−1) | b (L mol−1) |
|---|---|---|
| 241Am | 4.18 × 10−7 | 9.29 × 107 |
| 233U | 3.49 × 10−2 | 2.36 × 108 |
| 239Pu | 6.58 × 10−6 | 3.42 × 106 |
As a result of the revisions proposed the article, including the new data, was subject to further peer review. This review process established that the findings reported, and those reported for 233U in particular, were unrealistic and had resulted from inadvertent errors in the analysis. After taking the comments of the reviewers and our own judgment into account, this RSC Advances paper can no longer be deemed sufficiently robust to support the conclusions reported. Therefore, we have agreed to retract this article to maintain the accuracy of the scientific record and avoid misleading readers. We apologise for any consequent inadvertent inconvenience to authors and readers.
Signed: Chayan Banerjee, Nilesh Dudwadkar, Subhash Chandra Tripathi, Pritam Maniklal Gandhi, Chetan Prakash Kaushik, Sriparna Chaterjee, Pushan Ayyub and Avesh Kumar Tyagi. 1st December 2016.
Retraction endorsed by Andrew Shore, Executive Editor, RSC Advances.
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 |