We found a mistake in our recent work. The mistake was made in the chemical potential at saturation calculation μ0∗: we reported μ0∗ = -9.596, while the correct value should be -9.332. Therefore, Figures 1-4 and 6 should be replotted, and although the new ones have a similar trend, they have different numerical values. Our conclusions also remain the same. The black dashed vertical lines represent the values corresponding the old saturation chemical potential value. Table 2 is also revised. dashed lines show the calculations based on the macroscopic thermodynamics (eq 10 in the paper), and the solid lines show the calculations based on the statistical mechanics (eq 8 in the paper) approach. We had troubles with equilibrating the 2 nm isotherm due to a small number of molecules, similarly to the issue in our recent paper. (Figure Presented).
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||2|
|State||Published - May 5 2020|
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Materials Science(all)
- Condensed Matter Physics
- Surfaces and Interfaces