Open Access Article
Zhi-Xiang
Xu
*a,
Xiao-Qiang
Deng
a,
Shu
Zhang
b,
Ya-Fei
Shen
c,
Ya-Qi
Shan
d,
Zhan-Ming
Zhang
e,
Rafael
Luque
fg,
Pei-Gao
Duan
*d and
Xun
Hu
*e
aSchool of Energy and Power Engineering, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China. E-mail: xuzx@ujs.edu.cn
bCollege of Materials Science and Engineering, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, China
cSchool of Environmental Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, Nanjing, China
dShaanxi Key Laboratory of Energy Chemical Process Intensification, School of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, No. 28, West Xianning Road, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China. E-mail: pgduan@xjtu.edu.cn
eSchool Materials Science and Engineering, University of Jinan, Jinan, China. E-mail: mse_hux@ujn.edu.cn
fDepartamento de Quimica Organica, Campus de Rabanales, Edificio Marie Curie (C-3), Ctra Nnal IV-A, Km 396, Cordoba, Spain
gPeoples Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), 6 Miklukho-Maklaya str., Moscow, Russian Federation
First published on 9th October 2025
Correction for ‘Benign-by-design N-doped carbonaceous materials obtained from the hydrothermal carbonization of sewage sludge for supercapacitor applications’ by Zhi-Xiang Xu et al., Green Chem., 2020, 22, 3885–3895, https://doi.org/10.1039/D0GC01272F.
In response, the authors have reviewed the concerns, repeated some of their experiments, and confirmed that the results are consistent with the published data. They maintain that there are no issues with the data presented in the article but provide some clarification in this correction.
An independent expert has reviewed the authors’ response and concluded that the FTIR data for RH-230-220 and RH-230-260 are indeed very similar, with only minor discrepancies. The expert supports the authors’ explanation that both samples are unexpectedly similar. The original FTIR traces of RH-230-260 and RH-230-220 are shown in Fig. 1 herein.
Regarding the nanoparticle sizes, the scales used in Fig. 5 and 6 are not sufficiently compatible to support reliable comparisons. As a result, the particle size distribution and aggregate size distribution cannot be directly compared. The authors explain that this misunderstanding stems from a lack of clarity in distinguishing between “particles” and “aggregates”.
The particle sizes reported by the particle size analyzer represent averages of “aggregates of particles” and do not reflect individual particle sizes. In contrast, SEM images can, in some cases, visualize and measure individual particles, which accounts for the observed discrepancies. The SEM images clearly show differences in the morphology of the materials, with the presence of aggregates being evident.
The Royal Society of Chemistry thanks the authors and the reviewer for their clarifying remarks and apologises for any inconvenience to authors and readers.
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2025 |