Correction: Discover Chemical Engineering (2023) 3:3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s43938-022-00015-0

An error was inadvertently introduced during the processing of the original article [1]: Figure 6 and Figure 7 legends were unfortunately interchanged.

Figure 6 shows: Foam generation ug and decay ud rates of samples 1–8 containing different fractions of a culture broth with U. maydis, as described in Table 1. The samples were measured as described in Sects. 2, 3. The error bars indicate the standard deviation of a triplicate.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Foam generation ug and decay ud rates of samples 1–8 containing different fractions of a culture broth with U. maydis, as described in Table 1. The samples were measured as described in Sects. 2, 3. The error bars indicate the standard deviation of a triplicate

Figure 7 shows: Schematic illustration of the hypothesized mechanisms of the foam stabilising effect of CL. A CL adsorption of soluble CL molecules in the liquid film surrounding a foam bubble. The circles indicate the hydrophilic parts, and the lines indicate the hydrophobic parts of CL. B The natural flow of liquid in foam lamellae due to drainage. C CL particle in a foam lamella, hindering the liquid flow and thus stabilising the foam.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Schematic illustration of the hypothesized mechanisms of the foam stabilising effect of CL. A CL adsorption of soluble CL molecules in the liquid film surrounding a foam bubble. The circles indicate the hydrophilic parts, and the lines indicate the hydrophobic parts of CL. B The natural flow of liquid in foam lamellae due to drainage. C CL particle in a foam lamella, hindering the liquid flow and thus stabilising the foam

The original article has been revised.