SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

The conductivity data of sponges in Table 1 were incorrect due to calculation mistakes. The correct data are shown here:

Table 1. Photoluminescence and electroluminescence emission data for complexes 1–4 and Ir(ppy)3. Device efficiencies were measured at 8% dopant concentration.
SamplesOriginalAnnealing at 600°CAnnealing at 800°CAnnealing at 1000°C
  1. Also, the sentences “After annealing at 600 °C for 2 h, these sponges became conductive. But their conductivities are very low (0.4 S·cm−1). After further carbonization at higher annealing temperatures, their conductivities increased to 128 S·cm−1 which is higher than that of carbon nanotubes sponge (5 S·cm−1) reported previously.[17]” on page 3645 should be “After annealing at 600°C for 2 h, these sponges became conductive. But their conductivities are very low (4 × 10−5 S·cm−1). After further carboni-zation at higher annealing temperatures, their conductivities increased to 1.28 × 10−2 S · cm−1 which is still lower than that of carbon nanotubes sponge (5 S·cm−1) reported previously.[17]”

Diameter of Fiber/nm790460370330
Density/mg cm−316.14.64.23.8
Conductivity/S cm−104 × 10−51.2 × 10−21.28 × 10−2
Elastic modulus/kPa20.291.277.357.58

The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused.