Open Access Article
This Open Access Article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence
Correction: Tantalum(V) 1,3-propanediolate β-diketonate solution as a precursor to sol–gel derived, metal oxide thin films
Christopher Bealeab,
Stefanie Hamacherab,
Alexey Yakushenkoc,
Oumaima Bensaidab,
Sabine Willboldd,
Guillermo Beltramoe,
Sören Möllerf,
Heinrich Hartmannd,
Elmar Neumanng,
Gregor Musslerh,
Alexander Shkurmanovh,
Dirk Mayera,
Bernhard Wolfrumai and
Andreas Offenhäusser*a
aIBI-3, Bioelectronics, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, D-52425, Germany. E-mail: a.offenhaeusser@fz-juelich.de
bRWTH Aachen University, Templergraben 55, D-52062, Germany
cFraunhofer Research Institute for Microsystems and Solid State Techologies, D-80686 Munich, Germany
dZEA-3, Analytics, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, D-52425, Germany
eIBI-2, Mechanobiology, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, D-52425, Germany
fIEK-1, Materials Synthesis and Processing, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, D-52425, Germany
gHelmholtz Nano Facility, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, D-52425, Germany
hPGI-9, Semiconductor Nanoelectronics, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, D-52425, Germany
iNeuroelectronics, Munich School of Bioengineering, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Technical University of Munich (TUM), D-85748 Garching, Germany
First published on 28th August 2020
Abstract
Correction for ‘Tantalum(V) 1,3-propanediolate β-diketonate solution as a precursor to sol–gel derived, metal oxide thin films’ by Christopher Beale et al., RSC Adv., 2020, 10, 13737–13748, DOI: 10.1039/D0RA02558E.
The authors regret that the plasma treatment and printing parameters were reported incorrectly in the subsection “Deposition on a-SiO2 for UV/Vis spectrophotometry” in the Experimental section of the original article.
Before printing, the substrate for both samples was subjected to an argon plasma treatment for 5 minutes (150 W, 0.6 mbar). The plasma power is now corrected to be the same as stated in the “Deposition on a-SiO2 for Raman/XRD” subsection, where originally it was incorrectly stated that “the power was set slightly higher” for the Raman/XRD samples. For both the acetylacetone and benzoylacetone inks, the inks were printed on their respective substrates with a 75 μm drop pitch having dimensions of 400 × 220 drops to create a uniform layer.
The correct section is as follows:
Deposition on a-SiO2 for UV/Vis spectrophotometry
0.5 mm thick a-SiO2 was chosen as the best substrate for transparency in the near UV range. Before printing, the substrate was subjected to an argon plasma treatment for 5 minutes (150 W, 0.6 mbar) using the NANO plasma oven (Diener electronic GmbH + Co. KG, Germany).Product from the proposed method with acetylacetone was diluted with DEGEE, with the dilution containing 706 mg of DEGEE (70 wt%) and 308 mg of product (30 wt%). The ink was then printed on the substrate with a 75 μm drop pitch having dimensions of 400 × 220 drops to create a uniform layer.
For benzoylacetone, the dilution contained 732 mg DEGEE (69 wt%) and 328 mg of product (31 wt%). The ink was then printed with a drop pitch of 75 μm to create uniform layers (the benzoylacetone ink did not spread as well as the acetylacetone ink), having dimensions of 400 × 220 drops to create a uniform layer.
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 2020 |