Corrigendum for “Solar-light-active silver phosphate/titanium dioxide/silica heterostructures for photocatalytic removal of organic dye” [J. Clean. Prod. 254 (2020) 120031](S0959652620300780)(10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120031)

Nadeem Raza, Waseem Raza, Hajera Gul, Mudassar Azam, Jechan Lee, Kumar Vikrant, Ki Hyun Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

CorrectionThe authors regret the following errors in the original manuscript. 1. In page 1, the sentence “The calculated quantum yield of Ag3PO4/TiO2/SiO2 (3.26 × 10−3 molecules/photon) was significantly higher than that of other photocatalytic systems (e.g., ∼3260 times other reported heterostructures, e.g., rGO/TiO2, Ni-doped/TiO2, and Cds/CoFe2O4) with good reusability in terms of the degradation efficiency (e.g., 99% for the first cycle and 81% for the fourth)” should be corrected to “The calculated quantum yield of Ag3PO4/TiO2/SiO2 (3.84 × 10−6 molecules/photon) was significantly higher than that of other photocatalytic systems (e.g., rGO/TiO2, Ni-doped/TiO2, WO3/g-C3N4, and Cds/CoFe2O4) with good reusability in terms of the degradation efficiency (e.g., 99% for the first cycle and 81% for the fourth)”. 2. In page 8, Table 1 should be replaced with the table shown below which is now corrected to contain the proper values. It was found that some data were inserted erroneously in Table 1 along with errors in the computation of QY, SY, and FOM values. Furthermore, more pieces of information have been added in this revised Table 1 for a clearer understanding. 3. In page 8, the sentence “The QY values for various photocatalysts utilized for MB degradation in aqueous systems varied from 10−5 to 10−8 molecules/photons (Table 1)” should be corrected to “The QY values for various photocatalysts utilized for MB degradation in aqueous systems varied from 10−6 to 10−8 molecules/photons (Table 1).” 4. In page 8, the sentence “Among all the applied photocatalysts, the highest value QY of 3.26 × 10−3 molecules/photon was seen in Ag3PO4/TiO2/SiO2, which is about three orders of magnitude higher than in rGO/TiO2 (1 × 10−6), which is the next best option (Table 1)” should be corrected to “Among all the applied photocatalysts, Ag3PO4/TiO2/SiO2 recorded the highest QY value of 3.84 × 10−6 molecules/photon which is about 1.5 times higher than WO3/g-C3N4 (2.61 × 10−6 molecules/photon), which is the next best option (Table 1).” 5. In page 8, the sentence “The calculated QY for Ag3PO4/TiO2/SiO2 (3.26 × 10−3 molecules/photons) was ∼3260 times higher compared with the next best option among the surveyed photocatalysts tested previously for the removal of MB” should be corrected to “The calculated QY for Ag3PO4/TiO2/SiO2 (3.84 × 10−6 molecules/photons) was ∼1.5 times higher than the next best option (WO3/g-C3N4) among the photocatalysts surveyed previously for the removal of MB.”Explanation for the mistakeIn the paper, the QY values between each sampling points (taken at 5 min intervals between t = 0 and 15 min) were calculated individually and then added together to represent the net QY of 3.26 × 10−3 molecules/photon. However, this QY is not the same as the overall QY for the photocatalytic process that should be integrated to cover the whole non-linear reaction between the initial (t = 0) and final sampling point (t = 15 min). The correctly derived overall QY for our photocatalytic system is 3.84 × 10−6 molecules/photons instead of 3.26 × 10−3 molecules/photon. The same procedure was employed to derive the overall QY values for all other studies reported in Table 1. Additionally, we had incorrectly inserted some of the process variables (e.g., photocatalyst dosage, removal efficiency, and reaction time) in Table 1 (as confirmed by contrasting data between the old and new Table 1). Furthermore, some new variables and data (e.g., explanation on the wavelength selection for QY calculation, lamp power, and the pollutant moles/molecules removed in the given reaction time) have now been added for a clearer presentation of the data in Table 1. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience the authors might have caused to the readers of the journal. The correction does not alter the primary results, discussion, and conclusions of the article.

Original languageEnglish
Article number125351
JournalJournal of Cleaner Production
Volume281
DOIs
StatePublished - 2021 Jan 25

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Corrigendum for “Solar-light-active silver phosphate/titanium dioxide/silica heterostructures for photocatalytic removal of organic dye” [J. Clean. Prod. 254 (2020) 120031](S0959652620300780)(10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120031)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this