Open Access Article
This Open Access Article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence
Correction: Chitosan-gated organic transistors printed on ethyl cellulose as a versatile platform for edible electronics and bioelectronics
Alina S.
Sharova
ab,
Francesco
Modena
ac,
Alessandro
Luzio
a,
Filippo
Melloni
ac,
Pietro
Cataldi
ad,
Fabrizio
Viola
a,
Leonardo
Lamanna
ag,
Nicolas F.
Zorn
e,
Mauro
Sassi
f,
Carlotta
Ronchi
a,
Jana
Zaumseil
e,
Luca
Beverina
f,
Maria Rosa
Antognazza
a and
Mario
Caironi
*a
aCenter for Nano Science and Technology, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Via Raffaele Rubattino, 81, 20134 Milano, Italy. E-mail: mario.caironi@iit.it
bDepartment of Physics, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci, 32, 20133 Milano, Italy
cDepartment of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci, 32, 20133 Milano, Italy
dSmart Materials, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Via Morego 30, 16163, Genova, Italy
eInstitute for Physical Chemistry, Heidelberg University, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
fDepartment of Materials Science, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, via Cozzi, 55, 20125, Milano, Italy
gDepartment of Engineering for Innovation, University of Salento, Via per Monteroni, 73100 Lecce, Italy
First published on 14th August 2024
Abstract
Correction for ‘Chitosan-gated organic transistors printed on ethyl cellulose as a versatile platform for edible electronics and bioelectronics’ by Alina S. Sharova et al., Nanoscale, 2023, 15, 10808–10819, https://doi.org/10.1039/D3NR01051A.
The authors regret that in the original article the weight of semiconductors present for each inverter was erroneously reported, due to a calculation error. Table 1 indicated a “Dose per device” of 4 pg for both P3HT and P(NDI-C4-TEGMe-T2), however, the correct doses are 8.4 ng for P3HT and 16 ng for P(NDI-C4-TEGMe-T2). The authors confirm that the main findings and conclusions of the work are not affected by this error. While the actual dose of semiconductors per inverter is three orders of magnitude greater than what erroneously reported in the original manuscript, such a value still represents a very small trace with respect to the total volume of the device, i.e., nanograms vs. milligrams.
The correct Table 1 is reported below:
| Material | Dose per device | Allowed daily intake |
|---|---|---|
| P3HT | 8.4 ng | N.A. |
| P(NDI-C4-TEGMe-T2) | 16 ng | N.A. |
| Ethylcellulose | ∼3 mg | 660–900 mg kg−1 day−1 (E462) |
| Printed gold | 2 μg | N.A. (1.32 μg kg−1 day−1 for E175 edible gold) |
| Printed silver | 10 μg | N.A. (12 μg kg−1 day−1 for E174 edible silver) |
| Chitosan | 0.2 mg | 6 g day−1 |
| Glycerol | 0.04 mg | 2 g kg−1 day−1 (E422) |
In addition:
- In the abstract: “including biocompatible polymers present in the picogram range per device” should be: “including biocompatible polymers present in the nanogram range per device”.
- On page 10816, left column, line 24: “range of picograms per device” should be: “range of nanograms per device”.
- On page 10816, right column, line 21: “i.e. picograms per transistor” should be: “i.e. nanograms per transistor”.
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 2024 |