Correction: Cadmium isotopes analysis of environmental samples with high organic matter by dry ashing method under wet plasma conditions

Abstract

Correction for ‘Cadmium isotopes analysis of environmental samples with high organic matter by dry ashing method under wet plasma conditions’ by Xian Wu et al., J. Anal. At. Spectrom., 2024, 39, 2298–2308, https://doi.org/10.1039/D4JA00083H.

---

The headings of Table 3 were previously misaligned. The first two δ¹¹⁴Cd values were incorrectly placed under “Dry ashing”, and the third δ¹¹⁴Cd value is placed under “High-pressure bomb”, which does not reflect the intended structure of the table. This misalignment obscures the correct interpretation of the analytical results. The updated Table 3 with the correct heading alignment is found below.

Table 3 The information of environmental standard samples under dry ashing method and high-pressure bomb method in this study and the literature

Sample name	Cd (µg g^−1)	Dry ashing						High-pressure bomb			Reference
		Weighing sample (g)	LOI (%) (mean ± 2 SD)	Recovery (%) (mean ± 2 SD)	δ^114Cd (‰)	2 SD	n	δ^114Cd (‰)	2 SD	n	δ^114Cd (‰)	2 SD
a This value is obtained from long-term observations in this study and is consistent with Kłos et al. (2012).^57
NIST SRM 2711a	54.1 ± 0.5	0.2670–0.5261	6.08 ± 0.38	91.6 ± 1.4	0.524	0.086	2	0.543	0.060	38	0.58	0.08	Li et al. (2018)^39
											0.551	0.051	Liu et al. (2019)^27
											0.532	0.038	Tan et al. (2020)^28
											0.550	0.046	Dong et al. (2022)^31
											0.557	0.032	Lu et al. (2021)^55
											0.62	0.03	Peng et al. (2021)^40
GSS-4 (GBW07404)	0.35 ± 0.08	0.5235–0.5245	9.48 ± 0.35	106.1 ± 4.5	−0.317	0.082	2	−0.286	0.035	4	−0.308	0.016	Tan et al. (2020)^28
											−0.303	0.044	Dong et al. (2022)^31
											−0.23	0.09	Peng et al. (2021)^40
											−0.314	0.040	Chang et al. (2023)^41
GSS-5 (GBW07405)	0.45 ± 0.09	0.3506–0.3531	5.67 ± 0.60	105.9 ± 5.5	−0.481	0.043	3				−0.694	0.010	Tan et al. (2020)^28
											−0.558	0.046	Dong et al. (2022)^31
											−0.54	0.06	Peng et al. (2021)^40
GSD-11 (GBW07311)	2.3 ± 0.2	0.4579–0.4597	1.85 ± 0.07	94.4 ± 3.2	−0.305	0.064	2	−0.281	0.059	33	−0.304	0.054	Pallavicini et al. (2014)^30
											−0.274	0.037	Tan et al. (2020)^28
											−0.320	0.067	Dong et al. (2022)^31
											−0.34	0.06	Peng et al. (2021)^40
GSD-12 (GBW07312)	4.0 ± 0.3	0.4975–0.5847	2.36 ± 0.59	108.0 ± 0.7	−0.049	0.063	2	−0.067	0.056	21	−0.04	0.06	Li et al. (2018)^39
											−0.071	0.060	Tan et al. (2020)^28
											−0.041	0.03	Dong et al. (2022)^31
											−0.10	0.06	Peng et al. (2021)^40
											−0.039	0.104	Lu et al. (2021)^55
											−0.123	0.035	Chang et al. (2023)^41
BCR-482	0.50 ± 0.02^a	0.6480–1.6714	97.61 ± 0.09	93.1 ± 6.27	−0.176	0.073	4	−0.188	0.028	7	−0.170	0.030	Borovička et al. (2021)^56
GSB-16 (GBW10025)	0.37 ± 0.03	0.3330–0.4054	90.57 ± 0.25	107.9 ± 0.8	−0.026	0.058	3	0.030	0.054	2	−0.069	0.059	Lu et al. (2021)^55
GSB-29 (GBW10051)	1.00 ± 0.02	0.3462–0.4065	92.98 ± 2.22	102.2 ± 8.5	−0.613	0.056	3	−0.689	0.038	3	−0.611	0.069	Lu et al. (2021)^55
NIST SRM 1632d	0.08 ± 0.01	1.2377–1.3885	92.82 ± 0.21	94.5 ± 23.0	−0.309	0.041	2	−0.264	0.058	2

---

Minor formatting updates to the chemical reaction eqn (S1–S3) presented in the supplementary information have also been incorporated.

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

---