Correction: Continuous tuneable droplet ejection via pulsed surface acoustic wave jetting

Abstract

Correction for ‘Continuous tuneable droplet ejection via pulsed surface acoustic wave jetting’ by Jasmine O. Castro et al., Soft Matter, 2018, DOI: 10.1039/c7sm02534c.

---

The authors regret the following errors in the original manuscript.

 

1. A typographic error is present in eqn (2) of the original paper. The definition for the modified Weber number in the equation should inversely scale as the square of the characteristic length L instead of linearly, as shown below:

Original version (with the error)

Corrected version

While the correct Weber number was plotted in Fig. 2b, the original figure had values that omitted the prefactor π. Consequently, the ranges for the Weber number for each regime in Fig. 2b have a lower magnitude. Fortunately, this results in the entire graph simply being shifted downwards, as shown below, and hence the conclusions derived from the figure remain unaltered. The correct version of Fig. 2b and the associated caption are as below.

Fig. 2 (a) Phase map showing the various jetting regimes obtained when an 0.8 μL parent water drop is subject to a pulsed SAW with varying power and pulse width: (i) parent drop deformation, (ii) bag breakup, (iii) single droplet ejection, (iv) satellite droplet formation. The inset comprises image sequences showing the evolution of the parent drop for each regime as a function of the modified Weber number defined in eqn (2) (regime i: 0 < We < 30 × 10³; regime ii: 30 × 10³ < We < 82 × 10³; regime iii: 82 × 10³ < We < 13 × 10⁴; regime iv: We > 13 × 10⁴), which can be used to collapse the data in (b). Panel (b) also contains additional data beyond that in panel (a) for different parent drop volumes. The time between successive images in the inset in (a) is 5.0, 1.4, 3.4 and 4.0 ms, respectively, for each regime. Panel (b) also contains additional data beyond that in panel (a) for different parent drop volumes. The time between successive images in the inset in (a) is 5.0, 1.4, 3.4 and 4.0 ms, respectively, for each regime.

 

2. On line 17 of page 6, the value of the absorbance should be 570 nm instead of 540 nm. This correction does not affect the results reported in the paper because the energetic bandgaps are identical, except for a shift in the y axis.

 

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

---