Additions and corrections

Pulsed electrolysis – explained

T. Miličić,‡^a M. Sivasankaran,‡^a C. Blümner,‡^ab A. Sorrentino,^a and T. Vidaković-Koch ^*a

Author affiliations

^* Corresponding authors

‡ Equal contributions

^a Max Planck Institute for Dynamics of Complex Technical Systems, Sandtorstraβe 1, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany

E-mail: vidakovic@mpi-magdeburg.mpg.de

^b Otto-von-Guiericke University, Universitätsplatz 2, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany

Faraday Discuss., 2023, 246, 179-197 (DOI: 10.1039/D3FD00030C). Amendment published 24 March 2025.

The authors regret the below errors in the above-mentioned published article.

In the second sentence in the paragraph after Eq. 4, the word amplitude is missing. The sentence should read as follows: 'The FRFs are not input amplitude dependent and for potential as an input have units of A m^-2/V ⁿ , where n is the order of the FRF (1 for the 1^st-order FRF, 2 for the 2^nd-order FRF, etc.).'

The variable I_ss in Eq. 16 had not been defined in the published article. It represents the steady-state current defined by the electrode active area (A_e) and steady-state current density (i_ss): I_ss = i_ssA_e.

Furthermore, the specific energy consumption under dynamic conditions (Eqs. 17 and 23) was incorrectly defined. The correct expression for determining the specific energy consumption under dynamic conditions, applicable to both potentiostatic and galvanostatic operations, is as given below.

where E is potential (V), I current (A), m_i mass flow rate of product i (kg s^-1), T period (s), t time (s), P power (W), and mean in subscript stands for the time-averaged value. The specific energy consumption depends on the average power and the average product mass. The erroneous formulation of Eq. 17/23 in the manuscript resulted in an incorrect calculation of the specific energy consumption in the experiment shown in Table I. The revised table is presented below. However, this error did not affect the overall trend.

Table I: Specific energy consumptions at -0.93 V vs. RHE as a function of input amplitude at different frequencies

As a consequence of the changed values in Table I, the third to last sentence in the last paragraph of the results and discussion section should read as: 'The specific energy consumption is directly related to consumed power under dynamic conditions and the mass of the product.' Also, the eighth and ninth sentences in the conclusion should read as: 'Other figures of merit, like specific energy consumption, will be dependent on the time-averaged values of the output variables under dynamic conditions, or their ratios.'

Finally, a coefficient 2 was found to be missing in Eqs. 20 and 22. The correct equation is given below.

This led to minor adjustments in Figure 1 when using current density as an input. However, the changes are purely quantitative, with no qualitative differences observed in the results. The updated figure is shown below.

Fig. 1 a) Asymmetrical 2^nd-order frequency response functions for potential or current as an input at the steady state of -0.7 V or -13.11 mA cm^-2,respectively, b) Mean partial CO current densities for potential or current as an input; for comparison, steady-state current value has been shown; conditions: input potential amplitude 0.1 V, input current amplitude 50 % i_ss c) Faradaic efficiencies for potential as input at different steady states and different amplitudes d) Faradaic efficiencies for current as an input at different steady states (same steady-state points as in c) and different amplitudes (amplitudes are expressed as percentages of i_ss ) at a frequency of 10 mHz

Data availability: The new data created for this corrigendum are available in Edmond at https://doi.org/10.17617/3.CCHCNR (folder Corrigendum_data.zip)

The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.

Back to article