Erratum for the Research Article “Acid-humidified CO <sub>2</sub> gas input for stable electrochemical CO <sub>2</sub> reduction reaction”

In the Research Article “Acid-humidified CO2 gas input for stable electrochemical CO2 reduction reaction,” by S. Hao et al. (12 June 2024, 10.1126/science.adr3834), the energy consumption associated with CO production was incorrectly reported in kWh (main text, page 6, final paragraph, and the methods section, page 10, left middle column). The correct unit is Wh. This was a unit-labeling error only; the numerical values and all scientific conclusions remain unchanged. Additionally, a clarification of the derivation of the energy-efficiency value reported on page 10 has been provided here: Although the calculated value is correct, the original narrative description may lead to ambiguity. The energy efficiency can be more clearly calculated and described using formation free energies and free energies of gas mixing (CO2 mixed with O2 in the anode chamber) rather than the calcination cycle in (1) (ref. 47 in the Research Article). This clarification does not affect any experimental results, analyses, or conclusions of the work.

Publication Details

Journal
Science
Published
2026-03-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aeh0747
Primary Topic
CO2 Reduction Techniques and Catalysts
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Erratum for the Research Article “Acid-humidified CO 2 gas input for stable electrochemical CO 2 reduction reaction”

Science
CO2 Reduction Techniques and Catalysts
article

Erratum for the Research Article “Acid-humidified CO 2 gas input for stable electrochemical CO 2 reduction reaction”

article en

Abstract

In the Research Article “Acid-humidified CO2 gas input for stable electrochemical CO2 reduction reaction,” by S. Hao et al. (12 June 2024, 10.1126/science.adr3834), the energy consumption associated with CO production was incorrectly reported in kWh (main text, page 6, final paragraph, and the methods section, page 10, left middle column). The correct unit is Wh. This was a unit-labeling error only; the numerical values and all scientific conclusions remain unchanged. Additionally, a clarification of the derivation of the energy-efficiency value reported on page 10 has been provided here: Although the calculated value is correct, the original narrative description may lead to ambiguity. The energy efficiency can be more clearly calculated and described using formation free energies and free energies of gas mixing (CO2 mixed with O2 in the anode chamber) rather than the calcination cycle in (1) (ref. 47 in the Research Article). This clarification does not affect any experimental results, analyses, or conclusions of the work.

ScienceVol. 391(6790)
Affordable and clean energy
Openalex Percentile: Top 29%
CO2 Reduction Techniques and Catalysts
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.