Open Access Article
This Open Access Article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence
Correction: Continuous reactor for renewable methanol
Athanasios A.
Tountas
a,
Geoffrey A.
Ozin
*b and
Mohini M.
Sain
ac
aDepartment of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry, University of Toronto, 200 College St., Toronto, ON M5S 3E5, Canada
bDepartment of Chemistry, University of Toronto, 80 St George St., Toronto, ON M5S 3H6, Canada. E-mail: g.ozin@utoronto.ca
cDepartment of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, 5 King's College Rd., Toronto, ON M5S 3G8, Canada
First published on 16th February 2022
Abstract
Correction for ‘Continuous reactor for renewable methanol’ by Athanasios A. Tountas et al., Green Chem., 2021, 23, 340–353, DOI: 10.1039/D0GC03115A.
The definition of ‘yield of product C’ or ‘per-pass yield of product C’ used in this article refers to the ‘molar flow of product C (FC for example of product MeOH) divided by the total outlet product stream (FT,outlet)’, or FC/FT,outlet × 100 (in mol%). It can otherwise be called the ‘product stream concentration’.
The above is not a precise definition of ‘yield of product C’ or YC/A, for which a precise definition is the molar flow of product C (FC) divided by the initial molar flow of reactant A (FA0) or FC/FA0 × 100 (in %).
The authors regret using the former imprecise definition, which has been used consistently throughout the article and the ESI.
The following sentences should also be changed as follows:
On page 346, right column, third paragraph, “However, this SV represents a 95% reduction in throughput compared to the best (CO-rich feed) case, with 70% reduction in MeOH yield”. should be changed to:
“However, this SV represents a 95% reduction in throughput compared to the best (CO-rich feed) case, with 70% reduction in COX conversion to MeOH”.
In the same paragraph, “The overall disadvantage of the CO2-rich pathway by taking the throughput and yield into account is 98.5% less productive compared to the best CO-rich case”. Should be changed to: “The overall disadvantage of the CO2-rich pathway by taking the throughput and COX conversion into account is 98.5% less productive compared to the best CO-rich case”.
On page 347, left column, first paragraph, “The intermediate-CO feed has 35% less yield and 50% less throughput for an overall disadvantage of 68%”. Should be changed to “The intermediate-CO feed has 35% less COX conversion and 50% less throughput for an overall disadvantage of 68%”.
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 2022 |