Erratum to: Dry jet-wet spinning of strong cellulose filaments from ionic liquid solution (Cellulose, (2014), 21, 6, (4471-4481), 10.1007/s10570-014-0414-0)

Research output: Other contributionScientificpeer-review

Standard

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex - Download

@misc{070c9bd62f1e4963a0f26d12aa8252b0,
title = "Erratum to: Dry jet-wet spinning of strong cellulose filaments from ionic liquid solution (Cellulose, (2014), 21, 6, (4471-4481), 10.1007/s10570-014-0414-0)",
abstract = "For the spinning system, the manufacturer’s software reported an incorrect extrusion flow rate ve (ml min-1). The correct values for ve may be obtained by multiplying the reported ve with 1/0.6. As DR is determined from ve, it is also affected: To obtain correct DR, multiply the reported DR with 0.6. The figures are modified as follows: (Table presented.) Thus, the maximum DR is 7.5 at 0.033 ml min-1 rather than 12.5 at 0.02 ml min-1. Conclusions remain otherwise intact. In section “Linear density (titer)” in Eq. 2, referring to Fig. 2, the constant factor is 13.88 ± 0.14 dtex and the factor s = 1.236 ± 0.013, instead of 22.4 ± 0.4 dtex and 1.994 ± 0.004. Referring to Fig. 3 with both variable ve and DR, the constant factor is 13.9 ± 0.01 dtex and s = 1.238 ± 0.001 instead of 23.1 ± 0.02 dtex and 2.063 ± 0.02. This result implies less shrinking of the fiber volume than reported. In section “Tenacity and modulus,” for the relation between tenacity and draw ratio, the equation σ = σmax(1 - a/DR) has the factor a = 0.31 ± 0.02 instead of 0.51 ± 0.04. In section “Orientation,” the draw ratio dependency of orientation is Δn = (0.044 ± 0.001)– (0.0080 ± 0.0023)/DR instead of Δn = (0.044 ± 0.001)–(0.0048 ± 0.0014)/DR. Orientation increases up to DR 3; however, the claim that orientation increases up to DR 5 remains consistent with the data within statistical significance. The deformation remains consistent with the Kratky II limiting case due to the gradual nonlinear nature of the change of orientation and there is no need to modify this conclusion. In section “Effects of the aspect ratio of the spinneret and guide-to-godet stress,” the new s = 1.17 ± 0.05 instead of 1.95 ± 0.08. The conclusions remain intact. (Table presented.) In section “Conclusions,” the claim that Kong and Eichhorn claim a dependency on DR -0.5 is incorrect: They claim a dependency ds -0.5 on the fiber diameter ds, which is equivalent to our claim of DR -1. Cellulose, Volume 24, Issue 7, pp 3109-3110.",
author = "Hauru, {Lauri K.J.} and Michael Hummel and Anne Michud and Herbert Sixta",
year = "2017",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10570-017-1305-y",
language = "English",
type = "Other",

}

RIS - Download

TY - GEN

T1 - Erratum to

T2 - Dry jet-wet spinning of strong cellulose filaments from ionic liquid solution (Cellulose, (2014), 21, 6, (4471-4481), 10.1007/s10570-014-0414-0)

AU - Hauru, Lauri K.J.

AU - Hummel, Michael

AU - Michud, Anne

AU - Sixta, Herbert

PY - 2017/7/1

Y1 - 2017/7/1

N2 - For the spinning system, the manufacturer’s software reported an incorrect extrusion flow rate ve (ml min-1). The correct values for ve may be obtained by multiplying the reported ve with 1/0.6. As DR is determined from ve, it is also affected: To obtain correct DR, multiply the reported DR with 0.6. The figures are modified as follows: (Table presented.) Thus, the maximum DR is 7.5 at 0.033 ml min-1 rather than 12.5 at 0.02 ml min-1. Conclusions remain otherwise intact. In section “Linear density (titer)” in Eq. 2, referring to Fig. 2, the constant factor is 13.88 ± 0.14 dtex and the factor s = 1.236 ± 0.013, instead of 22.4 ± 0.4 dtex and 1.994 ± 0.004. Referring to Fig. 3 with both variable ve and DR, the constant factor is 13.9 ± 0.01 dtex and s = 1.238 ± 0.001 instead of 23.1 ± 0.02 dtex and 2.063 ± 0.02. This result implies less shrinking of the fiber volume than reported. In section “Tenacity and modulus,” for the relation between tenacity and draw ratio, the equation σ = σmax(1 - a/DR) has the factor a = 0.31 ± 0.02 instead of 0.51 ± 0.04. In section “Orientation,” the draw ratio dependency of orientation is Δn = (0.044 ± 0.001)– (0.0080 ± 0.0023)/DR instead of Δn = (0.044 ± 0.001)–(0.0048 ± 0.0014)/DR. Orientation increases up to DR 3; however, the claim that orientation increases up to DR 5 remains consistent with the data within statistical significance. The deformation remains consistent with the Kratky II limiting case due to the gradual nonlinear nature of the change of orientation and there is no need to modify this conclusion. In section “Effects of the aspect ratio of the spinneret and guide-to-godet stress,” the new s = 1.17 ± 0.05 instead of 1.95 ± 0.08. The conclusions remain intact. (Table presented.) In section “Conclusions,” the claim that Kong and Eichhorn claim a dependency on DR -0.5 is incorrect: They claim a dependency ds -0.5 on the fiber diameter ds, which is equivalent to our claim of DR -1. Cellulose, Volume 24, Issue 7, pp 3109-3110.

AB - For the spinning system, the manufacturer’s software reported an incorrect extrusion flow rate ve (ml min-1). The correct values for ve may be obtained by multiplying the reported ve with 1/0.6. As DR is determined from ve, it is also affected: To obtain correct DR, multiply the reported DR with 0.6. The figures are modified as follows: (Table presented.) Thus, the maximum DR is 7.5 at 0.033 ml min-1 rather than 12.5 at 0.02 ml min-1. Conclusions remain otherwise intact. In section “Linear density (titer)” in Eq. 2, referring to Fig. 2, the constant factor is 13.88 ± 0.14 dtex and the factor s = 1.236 ± 0.013, instead of 22.4 ± 0.4 dtex and 1.994 ± 0.004. Referring to Fig. 3 with both variable ve and DR, the constant factor is 13.9 ± 0.01 dtex and s = 1.238 ± 0.001 instead of 23.1 ± 0.02 dtex and 2.063 ± 0.02. This result implies less shrinking of the fiber volume than reported. In section “Tenacity and modulus,” for the relation between tenacity and draw ratio, the equation σ = σmax(1 - a/DR) has the factor a = 0.31 ± 0.02 instead of 0.51 ± 0.04. In section “Orientation,” the draw ratio dependency of orientation is Δn = (0.044 ± 0.001)– (0.0080 ± 0.0023)/DR instead of Δn = (0.044 ± 0.001)–(0.0048 ± 0.0014)/DR. Orientation increases up to DR 3; however, the claim that orientation increases up to DR 5 remains consistent with the data within statistical significance. The deformation remains consistent with the Kratky II limiting case due to the gradual nonlinear nature of the change of orientation and there is no need to modify this conclusion. In section “Effects of the aspect ratio of the spinneret and guide-to-godet stress,” the new s = 1.17 ± 0.05 instead of 1.95 ± 0.08. The conclusions remain intact. (Table presented.) In section “Conclusions,” the claim that Kong and Eichhorn claim a dependency on DR -0.5 is incorrect: They claim a dependency ds -0.5 on the fiber diameter ds, which is equivalent to our claim of DR -1. Cellulose, Volume 24, Issue 7, pp 3109-3110.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85018360975&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10570-017-1305-y

DO - 10.1007/s10570-017-1305-y

M3 - Other contribution

ER -

ID: 17198544