The authors have been alerted to an error in the reported electrochemical potential values. In Figure 3 and Table 1, the potentials of the [6]helicene derivatives were mistakenly given versus ferrocene/ferrocenium (Fc/Fc+) internal reference instead of a Ag wire pseudo-reference. In fact, the Fc/Fc+ redox couple exhibits an oxidation potential value of 0.42 V vs. Ag. Correspondingly, all the potential values in the main text are referenced versus Ag and not versus Fc/Fc+. Correct versions of Table 1 and Figure 3 are provided. This correction does not affect the validity of the interpretations and of the conclusions of the original Full Paper. The authors sincerely apologize for this error and would like to thank Professor Bo W. Laursen from the University of Copenhagen, Denmark for drawing their attention to this matter.
Figure 3.

Cyclic voltammograms of 1 mm dioxa (1, red), azaoxa (2, purple) and diaza (3, blue) [6]helicenes, recorded in degassed CH3CN solution containing 0.1 m TBAPF6 as supporting electrolyte (n=0.1 Vs−1). The potential was scanned first toward positive values and then toward negative ones.
Table 1.
Anodic and cathodic halfwave potentials (E1/2) values measured by CV for 1–3 in acetonitrile (0.1 M TBAPF6) at a Pt electrode (v = 0.1 Vs−1), E versus Ag. Fundamental gaps and optical gaps for 1–3.
| Cpd | [V] | [V] | Fund. gap [eV][b] | Opt. gap [eV][c] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −0.12 | 2.14[a] | 2.26 | 2.15 | |
| 2 | −0.45 | 1.93[a] | 2.38 | 2.11 | |
| 3 | −0.72 | 1.40 | 2.12 | 1.95 | |
[a] The anodic process is partially irreversible for 2 and fully irreversible for 1, and therefore, the reported value corresponds to the oxidation peak potential for these compounds.
[b] Fundamental (Fund.) For the compounds characterized by irreversible oxidation, the value of is replaced by the peak potential in a first approximation.
[c] Optical (Opt.) gap=0–0 energy.
