Correction: In situ electrochemical H₂ production for efficient and stable power-to-gas electromethanogenesis

Abstract

Correction for ‘In situ electrochemical H₂ production for efficient and stable power-to-gas electromethanogenesis’ by Frauke Kracke et al., Green Chem., 2020, 22, 6194–6203, DOI: 10.1039/D0GC01894E.

---

A value was omitted from the original version of Table 1.

Table 1 Comparison of key performance parameters of the presented work and key literature studies of electromethanogenesis

	Strain	Duration. [h]	Operating conditions	Cathode material	Cathode potential. [V] vs. SHE	Current density. [A m^−2]	CH4 production rate^a. [L L^−1 day^−1]	CE. [%]	Lead author, year
a Volumetric methane production rate is presented per culture volume.
Mixed cultures	Mixed (Methanobacterium dominated)	172	H-cell, batch fed	Graphite felt	−0.7	2.86	0.065	92	Baek, 2017^8
	Mixed thermophilic (Methanothermobacter dominated)	120	Single chamber; high pressure (5 MPa), high temperature (55 °C)	Carbon cloth	Na	3.33	0.068	80	Kobayashi, 2017^9
	Mixed thermophilic	3288	Single chamber, membrane-less, batch-fed medium, continuous CO2-fed, high temperature (60 °C)	Graphite disk	−0.65	4.94	0.090	71	Song, 2019^10
	Mixed	840	Flat-plate reactor, flow through, continuous-fed	Graphite felt	−0.7	2.90	0.173	52–74	Van Eerten-Jansen, 2015^11
	Mixed thermophilic (Methanobacter dominated)	480	Flat-plate reactor, flow through, continuous-fed, 3D cathode	Activated carbon (GAC) and graphite granules (GG)	−0.32 (GAC); −0.72 (GG)	35.00	0.228	66	Liu, 2018^12
	Mixed thermophilic (Methanothermobacter dominated)	24	H-cell, batch fed, high temperature (55 °C)	Carbon cloth	−0.8	0.20	0.236	91	Fu, 2015^13
	Mixed (Methanobacter dominated)	<24	Redox-flow-battery, flow-through, batch-fed	Graphite felt	−1.08	35.00	0.350	64	Geppert, 2019^14
	Mixed	24	H-cell, batch fed	Carbon felt	−0.95	13.00	0.527	57	Jiang, 2013^15
Pure cultures	IM 1 (marine 30C)	24	Two-chamber (salt-bridge), batch fed	Graphite rod	−0.4	0.05	0.0003	80	Beese-Vasbender, 2015^3
	Methanococcus maripaludis	80	H-cell, batch fed	Graphite rod	−0.7	0.22	0.002	59	Mayer, 2019^16
	Methanococcus maripaludis	250	Two-chamber pilot-scale reactor, continuous CO2-fed	Carbon laying	−0.9	0.09	0.006	113	Enzmann, 2019^17
	Methanococcus maripaludis	48	H-cell, batch fed	NiMo coated graphite rod	−0.6	10.00	0.018	95–100	Kracke, 2019^4
	Methanothermobacter thermautotrophicus strain ΔH	140	Single chamber, batch-fed	Carbon coated carbon paper	−1	3.00	0.080	20	Hara, 2019^18
	Methanococcus maripaludis	450	Bubble column, continuous CO2-fed	Carbon laying	−0.9	1.10	0.174	63	Enzmann, 2019^19
	Methanococcus maripaludis	840	H-cell, continuous CO2-fed	NiMo coated graphite rod	−0.65	10.00	1.38	98	Kracke & Deutzmann this study

---

Two values should have been present in column 5 of Table 1 with respect to the entry for Liu,¹² detailing the use of a mixed thermophilic strain.

The cathode potential [V] vs. SHE entry for the work of Liu¹² should read as “−0.32 (GAC); −0.72 (GG)”, noting the different potentials obtained with activated carbon (GAC) and graphite granules (GG).

The updated table is shown below and replaces the version included within the original manuscript.

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

---