Open Access Article
This Open Access Article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence
Correction: Ultra-high thermal conductivities of tetrahedral carbon allotropes with non-simple structures
Qiang
Chen†
a,
Pei
Zhang†
b,
Tao
Ouyang
*b,
Xiaoliang
Zhang
*c and
Guangzhao
Qin
*a
aState Key Laboratory of Advanced Design and Manufacturing for Vehicle Body, College of Mechanical and Vehicle Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, P. R. China. E-mail: gzqin@hnu.edu.cn
bHunan Key Laboratory for Micro-Nano Energy Materials & Device and School of Physics and Optoelectronics, Xiangtan University, Xiangtan 411105, Hunan, China. E-mail: ouyangtao@xtu.edu.cn
cKey Laboratory of Ocean Energy Utilization and Energy Conservation of Ministry of Education, School of Energy and Power Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China. E-mail: zhangxiaoliang@dlut.edu.cn
First published on 14th September 2021
Abstract
Correction for ‘Ultra-high thermal conductivities of tetrahedral carbon allotropes with non-simple structures’ by Qiang Chen et al., Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2021, DOI: 10.1039/d1cp02347k.
(1) The sentence
“It is found that the thermal conductivities of three carbon allotropes of C32, C36, and C94 with non-simple structure can be as high as 1152.75, 1075.70, and 860.07 W m−1 K−1, respectively, despite a large number of atoms in the primitive cell.”
beginning on line 5 of the Abstract on page 1 should be written as
“It is found that the thermal conductivity of three carbon allotropes of C32, C36, and C94 with non-simple structures can be as high as 1152.75, 1075.70, and 913.64 W m−1 K−1, respectively, despite the large number of atoms in the primitive cell.”
(2) The sentence
“Besides, the thermal conductivity value of C94 is 860.07 W m−1 K−1, which is a little bit smaller than those of C32 and C36.”
beginning on line 10, page 3, right column, in the Results and discussion subsection 3.2 should be written as
“Besides, the thermal conductivity of C94 is 913.64 W m−1 K−1, which is a little bit smaller than those of C32 and C36.”
(3) Fig. 3 should be corrected as shown below:
 | ||
| Fig. 3 The comparison of thermal conductivity calculated by different methods. | ||
(4) The sentence
“As collected in Table 1, the thermal conductivity value of C32 is calculated to be 1274 ± 119 W m−1 K−1 by fitting the supercell size (Fig. S7 in the ESI†), which is well consistent with the iterative solution of the BTE (1268 W m−1 K−1).”
beginning on line 17, page 3, right column, in the Results and discussion subsection 3.2 should be written as
“As collected in Table 1, the thermal conductivity of C32 is calculated to be 1274 ± 119 W m−1 K−1 by fitting the supercell size (Fig. S7 in the ESI†), which is well consistent with the iterative solution of the BTE (1153 W m−1 K−1).”
(5) The sentence
“The results show that C32, C36, and C94 possess ultra-high lattice thermal conductivity values, which are 1152.75, 1075.70, and 860.07 W m−1 K−1, respectively.”
beginning on line 4 of the Conclusions on page 6 should be written as
“The results show that C32, C36, and C94 possess ultra-high lattice thermal conductivity values, which are 1152.75, 1075.70, and 913.64 W m−1 K−1, respectively.”
The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.
Footnote |
| † Equal contribution. |
| This journal is © the Owner Societies 2021 |