Correction to “Multifunctional Chemosensors for the Simultaneous Detection of Copper and Mercury Ions: Applications in Test Strip Fabrication, Spiking Studies, and Logic Gate Formulation”

Corrections

All of these corrections do not affect the primary merit or conclusions of the reported work but are important for ensuring the integrity and clarity of the scientific data presented. The errors were entirely inadvertent, and the authors apologize for any inconvenience caused.

1. The LOD and LOQ values were mistakenly reported due to unintentional rounding off of certain digits in preceding calculations, typographical mistake while writing a decimal point and calculation error. These corrected values have been updated in Tables 1 and S4 (both tables are the same).

1/S4. Summary of Binding Constant, LOD and LOQ for CRBD-1 and CRBD-2.

Receptor	Analyte Ion	Solvent System	Binding Constant (M–2)	LOD in ppm	LOQ in ppm
CRBD-1	Cu2+	20%H2O/DMF	2.42 × 108	0.95015	3.163999
CRBD-1	Hg2+	20%H2O/DMF	1.45 × 107	0.00213628	0.00711381
CRBD-2	Cu2+	20%H2O/DMF	2.85 × 1011	0.039321	0.1309389
CRBD-2	Hg2+	20%H2O/DMF	2.44 × 106	41.992801	139.836027

2. % recovery values were calculated using an erroneous formula in Table 3 of the manuscript and Tables S2 and S3 of the Supporting Information. The correct % recovery values have now been updated in the following tables.

S2. Spiking of Cu²⁺ in Water Sample and % Recovery.

Samples	Cu2+ Spiked (ppm)	Cu2+ Found (ppm)	% Recovery	% RSD
River water	4	3.99	99.75	8.7
	6	6.0	100.0	1.74
	8	7.99	99.87	4.73
Tap water	4	3.5	87.5	5.89
	6	5.1	85.0	5.36
	8	7.8	97.5	5.17
Sea water	4	3.5	87.5	5.3
	6	6.1	101.66	3.4
	8	7.92	99.0	3.53

3/S3. Spiking of Cu²⁺ in Vegetable Juice Sample and % Recovery.

Samples	Spiked Cu2+ (ppm)	Cu2+ Found (ppm)	% Recovery	% RSD
Cucumber (Cucumis sativus)	10	9.99	99.90	6.5
	20	19.99	99.95	4.16
	30	29.9	99.67	5.12
Carrot (Daucus carota)	10	11.82	118.20	5.17
	20	19.81	99.05	4.41
	30	29.91	99.70	3.03
Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum)	10	11.98	119.80	3.49
	20	21.98	109.90	6.14
	30	29.98	99.93	2.97
Potato (Solanum tuberosum)	10	10.95	109.50	6.98
	20	19.95	99.75	11.94
	30	31.95	106.50	10.35
Onion (Allium cepa)	10	12.86	128.60	11.26
	20	19.99	99.95	2.01
	30	29.99	99.97	4.57
Garlic (Allium sativum)	10	11.96	119.60	5.74
	20	22.96	114.80	11.91
	30	29.96	99.87	11.93

3. In Table 2, the last entry (SL No. 10) should be read as 0.95015 ppm and 0.002136 ppm for Cu²⁺ and Hg²⁺, respectively.

4. For Equation S2, the LOD formula should read as LOD = 3 × σ/slope.

5. For Figure S26, the X-axis label should be corrected to read as Absorbance (A).

Addition

In order to reassure the nature and strength of interaction between CRBD-1 and Cu²⁺, a detailed frontier molecular orbital (FMO) analysis was carried out based on DFT calculations. The following additional figure should be considered as Figure in the Supporting Information.

S41.

Frontier molecular orbitals (HOMO and LUMO) and calculated energy gap (E _g) of CRBD-1 and CRBD-1 + Cu²⁺ complex.