Erratum: Microstructure determines water and salt permeation in commercial ion-exchange membranes (ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces (2019) 10:46 (39745-39756) DOI: 10.1021/acsami.8b14494)

The authors regret that there was an error in the calculation of the Flory-Huggins interaction parameter ? (eq S15). This error caused the values of water diffusion coefficient (Dw) and permeability (Pw) calculated via eq 11 and eq 12, respectively, to be overestimated by 11-32%. The equations shown in the original manuscript were correct; however, the numerical values of ?, Pw, and Dw were incorrect. After correcting the error, Pw and Dw both decreased by the same amount for any given membrane (e.g., both quantities decreased by 11% for one of the membranes; both decreased by 32% for another membrane). Results for all other parameters we reported (Ds, Ps, Kw, Ks, A, B, ?w, ?, ion-exchange capacity, thickness, Cfix) were not affected by this error in the ? parameter. We present below corrected tables and numerical values in the text. We also present corrected figures, though differences from the original figures are hard to discern because of the relatively small magnitude of changes in numerical values compared to the axis scales. The authors emphasize that the corrected values do not change the discussion or conclusions drawn in the manuscript. Among the membranes we studied, Pw and Dw each varied by approximately 1 order of magnitude; thus, a decrease of 11-32% in both variables does not meaningfully alter the relationships between Pw, Dw, and the other quantities we examined. Specifically, permeability and diffusion coefficients for water are still well correlated with those for salt (R2 = 0.86 and 0.50, respectively, with p > 0.01), and the slopes of the linear regression lines (2.73 and 2.02, respectively) are still consistent with expectations based on free volume theory, as discussed in the text. We apologize for any inconvenience caused by this error. 1. Page 39751: “As with permeance, the permeability within each thickness group varied over nearly an order of magnitude from~2 X 10-11 to 2 × 10-10m2 s-1 (Figure 4c and Figure S2)” should be corrected to “~1 × 10-11 to 1 × 10-10 m2.s-1”. (Figure Presented).