Correction to: Discovering tungsten-based composites as plasma facing materials for future high-duty cycle nuclear fusion reactors (Scientific Reports, (2024), 14, 1, (13864), 10.1038/s41598-024-64614-3)

Correction to: Scientific Reportshttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-64614-3, published online 15 June 2024 The original version of the Article contained errors in Figure 6. A wrong scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image was used for panel 6 g, which shows an SEM image acquired near the location of panel 6f with a higher magnification. Additionally, the scale bar for panel 6f is not accurate, and the labels “0.19 GW m⁻² 1000 pulses 1 ms”, “0.38 GW m⁻² 1000 pulses 1 ms”, and “0.38 GW m⁻² 10,000 pulses 1 ms” were incorrect. (Figure presented.) Surface morphology of DSW with 1.1 wt.% ZrC after attacks by high heat flux pulses with different base temperatures. (a–d) at room temperature; (e–h) at 400 °C; (i–l) at 1000 °C. The heat pulse conditions are noted on the left side of each row. Consequently, in Figure 6, “0.19 GW m⁻² 1000 pulses 1 ms”. now reads “0.19 GW m⁻² 100 pulses 1 ms”. and “0.38 GW m⁻² 1000 pulses 1 ms”. now reads “0.38 GW m⁻² 100 pulses 1 ms”. and “0.38 GW m⁻² 10,000 pulses 1 ms”. now reads “0.38 GW m⁻² 1000 pulses 1 ms”. Additionally, in the Performance evaluation under fusion reactor-relevant conditions section, under the subheading ‘Evolution of surface morphology of DSW under high heat flux’, “At 0.38 GW/m², the sample was exposed to 1000 and then 10,000 pulses, in order to investigate thermal fatigue at higher pulse numbers.” now reads “At 0.38 GW/m², the sample was exposed to 100 and then 1000 pulses, in order to investigate thermal fatigue at higher pulse numbers.” and “No apparent fatigue-induced damage events were observed in our experiment since the surface morphologies under 1000 and 10,000 pulses of 0.38 GW/m² shock are quite similar.” now reads “No apparent fatigue-induced damage events were observed in our experiment since the surface morphologies under 100 and 1000 pulses of 0.38 GW/m² shock are quite similar.” The original Figure 6 and accompanying legend appear in this Correction, and the Figure 6g,f were replaced with the correct images. The original Article has been corrected.