Erratum to: Dry jet-wet spinning of strong cellulose filaments from ionic liquid solution

Erratum to: Cellulose (2014) 21:4471–4481 DOI 10.1007/s10570-014-0414-0

For the spinning system, the manufacturer’s software reported an incorrect extrusion flow rate v_e (ml min⁻¹). The correct values for v_e may be obtained by multiplying the reported v_e with 1/0.6. As D_R is determined from v_e, it is also affected: To obtain correct D_R, multiply the reported D_R with 0.6. The figures are modified as follows:

ve reported	ve	DR reported	DR
0.01	0.017	1	0.6
0.02	0.033	2	1.2
0.03	0.050	3	1.8
0.04	0.067	4	2.4
0.045	0.075	5	3.0
0.05	0.083	6	3.6
		7	4.2
		7.5	4.5
		8	4.8
		9	5.4
		10	6.0
		11	6.6
		12	7.2
		12.5	7.5
		13	7.8

Thus, the maximum D_R 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 v_e and D_R, 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 = σ_max(1 − a/D_R) 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)/D_R instead of Δn = (0.044 ± 0.001)–(0.0048 ± 0.0014)/D_R. Orientation increases up to D_R 3; however, the claim that orientation increases up to D_R 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.

The correct D_Rs in Table 1 are:

DR reported	DR
1	0.6
3	1.8
7.5	4.5

In section “Conclusions,” the claim that Kong and Eichhorn claim a dependency on D ^−0.5_R is incorrect: They claim a dependency d ^−0.5_s on the fiber diameter d_s, which is equivalent to our claim of D ⁻¹_R .