We have recently become aware of four errors in our published paper, which should be corrected as follows.
1. Updates Required Based on Correction to “Analytic Correlation for the Thermodynamic Properties of Water at Low Temperatures (200–300 K) and High Pressures (0.1–400 MPa)”
There were some coding errors found in our previous paper (“Analytic Correlation for the Thermodynamic Properties of Water at Low Temperatures (200–300 K) and High Pressures (0.1–400 MPa)” (10.1021/acs.jpcb.4c03909)) for which a Correction was published. Because the same code was used to generate the data and plots for this paper, updates are required.
a. What Remains Unchanged
This coding error causes minor changes in reported numbers but does not impact the results, discussion, or conclusions of this work. Although the differences in the figures are almost imperceptible, for full transparency we include updated figures in this errata.
b. What Has Been Impacted and Requires Updating (Based on Coding Error)
Changes to the Conclusions Section
Our predictions had a mean percent error of 21.23% 19.09% and a mean absolute error of 5.44 MPa 6.13 MPa.
Changes to the Results and Discussion Section
This
error resulted in changes to Figures
– as well as Table
. Updated versions of these are given below. Because
of the slight changes to the predictions, we recognized that previously
GLY appeared to have less of a pressure increase than EG; however,
with the changes to the predictions, it now appears that EG solutions
have less of a pressure increase than GLY. Interestingly, the predicted
trend for the volume percentage of ice remained the same (with GLY
solutions forming less ice than EG solutions). Because of this, the
trends should now be
3.
Predictions for isochoric (constant-volume) freezing of a NaCl–H2O solution at physiological concentration (isotonic saline). (a) The pressure prediction for isotonic saline (solid red line) compared with the literature data reported by Rubinsky et al. (symbols).2 (b) The predicted volume percentage of ice for physiological saline. (c) The predicted concentration increase of NaCl in the unfrozen fraction of physiological saline.
12.
Investigation of the effect of sealing temperature on isochoric freezing predictions for NaCl–glycerol (GLY)–H2O solutions. (a) The pressure predictions. (b) The predicted volume percentages of ice. (c) The predicted concentration increases of NaCl in the unfrozen fraction. (d) The predicted concentration increases of GLY in the unfrozen fraction.
11. Mean Percent Error (MPE) and Mean Absolute Error (MAE) for Each Prediction, Each Solution Combination, Each Species Combination, and Overall .
| solution | research group | MPE/MAE |
|---|---|---|
| physiological saline | Rubinsky et al.2 | 5.09%/1.49 MPa |
| Beşchea et al.9 | 3.15%/3.60 | |
| physiological saline overall | 3.88%/2.81 MPa | |
| 1 M GLY–saline | Rubinsky et al.2 | 12.18%/1.41 MPa |
| Beşchea et al.9 | 18.24%/12.90 MPa | |
| solution | 15.81%/8.30 MPa | |
| 2 M GLY–saline | Rubinsky et al.2 | 5.09%/1.73 MPa |
| Beşchea et al.9 | 3.43%/2.43 MPa | |
| solution | 4.20%/2.11 MPa | |
| 3 M GLY–saline | Beşchea et al.9 | 13.62%/1.30 MPa |
| 4 M GLY–saline | Beşchea et al.9 | 12.80%/3.49 MPa |
| 5 M GLY–saline | Beşchea et al.9 | 95.40%/2.67 MPa |
| GLY–saline overall | 14.83%/4.29 MPa | |
| 1 M EG–saline | Rubinsky et al.2 | 34.14%/9.17 MPa |
| Beşchea et al.10 | 6.75%/5.93 MPa | |
| solution | 26.84%/8.30 MPa | |
| 2 M EG–saline | Rubinsky et al.2 | 12.27%/3.65 MPa |
| Beşchea et al.10 | 6.93%/6.02 MPa | |
| solution | 9.94%/4.69 MPa | |
| 3 M EG–saline | Beşchea et al.10 | 33.17%/14.37 MPa |
| 4 M EG–saline | Beşchea et al.10 | 41.89%/19.46 MPa |
| 5 M EG–saline | Beşchea et al.10 | 67.97%/9.72 MPa |
| EG–saline overall | 25.29%/8.75 MPa | |
| 1 M DMSO–saline | Beşchea et al.10 | 6.05%/5.12 MPa |
| 2 M DMSO–saline | Beşchea et al.10 | 1.66%/0.90 MPa |
| 3 M DMSO–saline | Beşchea et al.9,10 | 14.26%/5.96 MPa |
| 4 M DMSO–saline | Beşchea et al.9,10 | 13.71%/1.92 MPa |
| DMSO–saline overall | 7.22%/3.68 MPa | |
| 1.5 M DMSO–water | Preciado and Rubinsky7 | 44.35%/8.78 MPa |
| DMSO–water overall | 44.35%/8.78 MPa | |
| OVERALL | 19.09%/6.13 MPa | |
Note that the percent error and absolute error were not able to be calculated at 258.15 K for the 4 M EG–saline* solution (Beşchea et al.10) because the predicted pressure would be negative, so this data point was excluded from the MPE and MAE calculations.
4.
Predictions for isochoric (constant-volume) freezing of NaCl–glycerol (GLY)–H2O solutions. (a) The pressure predictions (solid lines) compared with literature data reported by Rubinsky et al.2 (symbols). (b) The predicted volume percentages of ice. (c) The predicted concentration increases of NaCl in the unfrozen fraction. (d) The predicted concentration increases of GLY in the unfrozen fraction.
5.
Predictions for isochoric (constant-volume) freezing of NaCl–ethylene glycol (EG)–H2O solutions. (a) The pressure predictions (solid lines) compared with literature data reported by Rubinsky et al.2 (symbols). (b) The predicted volume percentages of ice. (c) The predicted concentration increases of NaCl in the unfrozen fraction. (d) The predicted concentration increases of EG in the unfrozen fraction.
6.
Predictions for isochoric (constant-volume) freezing of a NaCl–H2O solution at physiological concentration (isotonic saline). (a) The pressure prediction for isotonic saline (solid red line) compared with literature data reported by Beşchea et al.9 (symbols). (b) The predicted volume percentage of ice for physiological saline. (c) The predicted concentration increase of NaCl in the unfrozen fraction of physiological saline.
7.
Predictions for isochoric (constant-volume) freezing of NaCl–glycerol (GLY)–H2O solutions. (a) The pressure predictions (solid lines) compared with literature data reported by Beşchea et al.9 (symbols). (b) The predicted volume percentages of ice. (c) The predicted concentration increases of NaCl in the unfrozen fraction. (d) The concentration increases of GLY in the unfrozen fraction.
8.
Predictions for isochoric (constant-volume) freezing of NaCl–ethylene glycol (EG)–H2O solutions. (a) The pressure predictions (solid lines) compared with literature data reported by Beşchea et al.10 (symbols). (b) The predicted volume percentages of ice. (c) The predicted concentration increases of NaCl in the unfrozen fraction. (d) The predicted concentration increases of EG in the unfrozen fraction.
9.
Predictions for isochoric (constant-volume) freezing of NaCl–dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO)–H2O solutions. (a) The pressure predictions (solid lines) compared with literature data reported by Beşchea et al.10 (symbols). (b) The predicted volume percentages of ice. (c) The predicted concentration increases of NaCl in the unfrozen fraction. (d) The predicted concentration increases of DMSO in the unfrozen fraction.
10.
Predictions for isochoric (constant-volume) freezing of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO)–H2O solutions. (a) The pressure predictions (solid lines) compared with literature data reported by Preciado and Rubinsky7 (symbols). (b) The predicted volume percentages of ice. (c) The predicted concentration increases of DMSO in the unfrozen fraction.
11.
Predictions for isochoric (constant-volume) freezing of NaCl–propylene glycol (PG)–H2O solutions. (a) The predicted pressure. (b) The predicted volume percentages of ice. (c) The predicted concentration increases of NaCl in the unfrozen fraction. (d) The predicted concentration increases of PG in the unfrozen fraction.
Changes to the Supporting Information Document
This error also impacted the step sizes needed to make the predictions, as well as the values in the sample calculationsboth given in the Supporting Information document. For ease of the reader, we reproduced a new Supporting Information document with the changes denoted by red text. There were only changes to Appendix A, and these included the change in step size change from 10 to 5 K for temperature, and various step size changes for pressure given in Table S.1. Sample calculations given in eq A.10 to A.40 also have updated values.
2. Typographical Errors
We became aware of typographical errors in Tables and . We recognized that some of the significant digits for the initial mole fractions of NaCl and GLY solutions in Tables and were not correct. These errors did not appear in the coding. The revised tables are included below.
7. Initial Concentrations of Solutes in Each Solution Investigated by Rubinsky et al.2 (Rows That Have Changed).
8. Initial Concentrations of Solutes in Each Solution Investigated by Beşchea et al.9,10 (Rows That Have Changed).
Supplementary Material
The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpcb.5c05935.
Complete Appendices A and B with Appendix A corrections PDF)
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.