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

Published Date
July 2017, Volume 24, Issue 7, pp 3109–3110

Author

• Lauri K. J. Hauru
• Michael Hummel
• Anne Michud
• Herbert SixtaEmail author

1. 1.

Erratum

First Online: 

28 April 2017

DOI: 10.1007/s10570-017-1305-y

Cite this article as:

Hauru, L.K.J., Hummel, M., Michud, A. et al. Cellulose (2017) 24: 3109. doi:10.1007/s10570-017-1305-y

• 280Downloads

The online version of the original article can be found under doi:10.1007/s10570-014-0414-0.

For the spinning system, the manufacturer’s software reported an incorrect extrusion flow rate ve (ml min−1). The correct values for ve may be obtained by multiplying the reported ve with 1/0.6. As DR is determined from ve, it is also affected: To obtain correct DR, multiply the reported DR 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 DR 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 ve and DR, 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 = σmax(1 − a/DR) 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)/DR instead of Δn = (0.044 ± 0.001)–(0.0048 ± 0.0014)/DR. Orientation increases up to DR 3; however, the claim that orientation increases up to DR 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 DRs 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 DR−0.5 is incorrect: They claim a dependency ds−0.5 on the fiber diameter ds, which is equivalent to our claim of DR−1.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

For further details log on website :
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10570-017-1305-y