Correction: A novel microfluidic system for the sensitive and cost-effective detection of okadaic acid in mussels

Abstract

Correction for ‘A novel microfluidic system for the sensitive and cost-effective detection of okadaic acid in mussels’ by Ana Castanheira et al., Analyst, 2021, 146, 2638–2645, DOI: 10.1039/D0AN02092C.

---

The authors regret that the calculations from the raw data to estimate the OA concentration are incorrect in the original manuscript. Fig. 6, Table 2 and sections of the text in the manuscript should be adjusted according to the changes presented here.

The correct version of Fig. 6 is shown below.

Fig. 6 Full response curve of the extracted matrix OA for the inhibition of PP1 entrapped within the sol–gel in the chamber. Results are presented as average ± SD of five experiments.

The correct version of Table 2 is shown below.

Table 2 Results of OA detection in chamber for the contaminated mussels and the study of assay recovery percentages (n = 4)

[OA]spiked μg kg^−1	[OA]extracted matrix μg kg^−1	RSD (%)	Recovery (%)
402.5	325	12	80
201.2	251	20	126
100.6	88	10	99

---

The sentence in the Abstract beginning “Our method revealed…” should be correctly given as “Our method revealed an LOD as low as 11.0 μg kg⁻¹ and a linear range between 19.7 and 15 767.3 μg kg⁻¹ for extracted mussel matrix in the chamber, detecting OA concentrations in contaminated mussels.”.

In section 3.5, the sentence on page 2643 beginning “The data were fitted to…” should be correctly given as “The data were fitted to a sigmoidal logistic eqn (1) and the LOD obtained in the chamber was as low as 11.0 μg kg⁻¹ over a large linear range (19.7 and 15 767.3 μg kg⁻¹), meeting the maximum permitted level of 160 μg OA eq. per kg of shellfish established by the European Commission.²⁹”.

In section 3.6, the sentence on page 2643 beginning “Mussels were contaminated…” should be correctly given as “Mussels were contaminated and analysed into the microfluidic system with a concentration of 100.6, 201.2 and 402.5 μg of OA per kg of homogenate tissue.” The sentence at the end of 2643 beginning “In terms of percent recovery…” should be correctly given as “In terms of percent recovery, the normally accepted range is between 80% and 120%³⁰ that was met for the concentrations of 402.5 and 100.6 μg kg⁻¹ (1000 and 250 nM, respectively) of OA.”.

The sentence in the conclusions beginning “The microfluidic system was…” should be correctly given as “The microfluidic system was able to detect a concentration as low as 11.6 nM in the reaction buffer and 11.0 μg kg⁻¹ in chamber for extracted mussel matrix.”.

Values in Table A1 in the original ESI have also been revised. The ESI has been updated online to reflect this change.

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

---