Erratum to: High-precision mass measurement of doubly magic $^{208}$Pb

Erratum to: Eur. Phys. J. A (2022) 58:202 https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00860-1

We found that the image charge shift (ICS) had an incorrect sign in the original paper. It should have been negative: $R_{\text {meas}}-\tilde{R} = \varDelta (R_{\text {meas}})_{\text {ICS}} = - 1.85(9)\times 10^{-10}$. This shifts the final mass value as well as the masses of the connected isotopes see Table 1. With the correct sign of the ICS, the systematically corrected cyclotron frequency ratio is: $R-1 = 1.252\,196\,10 (9)(10)(13)\times 10^{-4}$, where the number in the first, second, and third brackets indicate the statistical, systematic, and total uncertainty, respectively. This value is shifted by $3.7\times 10^{-10}$ in comparison to the original publication. As a result, the final atomic mass value of $^{208}$Pb is shifted by 0.077 $\upmu$u to

$$\begin{aligned} m(^{208}\text {Pb}) = 207.976\,650\,494(14)\,\text {u,} \end{aligned}$$

(1)

and the correct mass excess should be shifted by 71 eV in comparison to the originally published value and amounts to $-21,749.927(13)$ keV.

Table 1 New mass values of affected nuclides, when including the new mass value of this erratum of $^{208}$Pb in the AME2020 [1]

Moreover, in the original paper, R was defined as the mass ratio. However, the value given later in the paper is the ratio of the cyclotron frequencies of the ions. To be consistent, we now change the definition of R in Eq. (3) of the original paper to be the ratio of cyclotron frequencies:

$$\begin{aligned} R=\frac{\omega _c\left( {}^{208}\text {Pb}^{41+}\right) }{\omega _c\left( {}^{132}\text {Xe}^{26+}\right) } \text {.} \end{aligned}$$

(2)

In consequence, Eq. (4) should be changed as well

$$\begin{aligned} m\left( {}^{208}\text {Pb}\right) =\frac{41}{26R}m\left( {}^{132}\text {Xe}^{26+}\right) +41m_e-E_{\text {Pb}} \text {.} \end{aligned}$$

(3)

Furthermore, the q/m ratios given in the original publication were calculated using the atomic mass of the nuclides instead of the ionic mass. The correct ratios should be: $^{208}$Pb$^{41+}$: $q/m= 0.197\,159~e/\text {u}$ and $^{132}$Xe$^{26+}$: $q/m= 0.197\,134~e/\text {u}$. These values were not used in the analysis and therefore have no further impact on the results.

Lastly, in the original publication, there was an incorrect citation for the experiment Alphatrap at the MPIK in Heidelberg. The correct citation should have been [3].