Lisa L. Stillings
David L. Decker
James M. Thomas
Laura Craig
2015
<p id="p0010">The authors regret that the application of the<span> </span><i>t</i>-plot to determine the presence of micropores in the three sorbents needs the following corrections: (1) Fig. 1a, c, e are N<sub>2(g)</sub><span> </span>adsorption and desorption isotherms” (remove “BET”). This correction applies to descriptions in the text as well. (2) Table 2, the column titled “Micropores” is mislabelled, and should be labelled “Film thickness”, which may not equal the pore width. The column titled “Micropore volume” is a correct description for laterite volume 0.0022 cm<sup>3</sup> g<sup>−1</sup><span> </span>(<i>t</i> = 0.3–0.5 nm), but the other pore volumes listed cannot be identified as corresponding to micropores. They likely comprise both micropores and mesopores in laterite, while the presence of micropores in activated alumina is not clear. The positive y-intercept for the lowest linear portion of the laterite<span> </span><i>t</i>-plot curve indicates micropores (Fig. 1f), and the shape of the<span> </span><i>t</i>-plot curve suggests the presence of both micropores and mesopores. The shape of the activated alumina<span> </span><i>t</i>-plot curve suggests the presence of micropores and mesopores, but the zero intercept for the lowest linear portion of the curve (Fig. 1b) creates uncertainty regarding the presence of micropores. Also see Storck et al., 1998; Hay et al. 2011 and references therein. (Additional note: analytical instrument Micromeritics<sup>®</sup><span> </span>was misspelled as “Micrometrics”).</p><p id="p0015">The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.</p>
application/pdf
10.1016/j.apgeochem.2015.06.016
en
Elsevier
Corrigendum to “Comparing activated alumina with indigenous laterite and bauxite as potential sorbents for removing fluoride from drinking water in Ghana” [Appl. Geochem. 56 (2015) 50–66]
article