TY - JOUR
T1 - Corrigendum to “Upgrading options of a preliminary wastewater treatment plant including food waste addition
T2 - A detailed life cycle assessment from a systems perspective” [Water Res. (2018) 145 518-530](S0043135418306912)(10.1016/j.watres.2018.08.061)
AU - Guven, Huseyin
AU - Eriksson, Ola
AU - Wang, Zhao
AU - Ozturk, Izzet
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2020/2/1
Y1 - 2020/2/1
N2 - The authors regret Correction to WR14037. There were three errors in the published paper which require correction. 1) Table 1 provides life cycle inventory per functional unit of the investigated scenarios in the study and generated ash amounts are given in the last row of the table. In the published paper, the ash amounts are 2.33E-05, 2.66E-05 and 3.92E-05 g for S1, S2 and S3, respectively. However, there is a mistake in the unit conversion and they should be 23.3, 26.6 and 39.2 g for S1, S2 and S3, respectively.2) Table 3 summarizes the LCA results in the study. The authors realized that the fossil depletion results given in Fig. 11 do not match with those given in Table 3. The correct graph for the fossil depletion results is as follows. [Figure presented] 3) The legend of Fig. 14 does not appear in the published paper. Similar to Figure 12, the red line represents Scenario 2 and the blue line represents Scenario 3 in Fig. 14. The figure should be given as follows. [Figure presented] The corrections have no impact on the interpretation of the data presented and on the conclusion of this article. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.
AB - The authors regret Correction to WR14037. There were three errors in the published paper which require correction. 1) Table 1 provides life cycle inventory per functional unit of the investigated scenarios in the study and generated ash amounts are given in the last row of the table. In the published paper, the ash amounts are 2.33E-05, 2.66E-05 and 3.92E-05 g for S1, S2 and S3, respectively. However, there is a mistake in the unit conversion and they should be 23.3, 26.6 and 39.2 g for S1, S2 and S3, respectively.2) Table 3 summarizes the LCA results in the study. The authors realized that the fossil depletion results given in Fig. 11 do not match with those given in Table 3. The correct graph for the fossil depletion results is as follows. [Figure presented] 3) The legend of Fig. 14 does not appear in the published paper. Similar to Figure 12, the red line represents Scenario 2 and the blue line represents Scenario 3 in Fig. 14. The figure should be given as follows. [Figure presented] The corrections have no impact on the interpretation of the data presented and on the conclusion of this article. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85077001083&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.watres.2019.115408
DO - 10.1016/j.watres.2019.115408
M3 - Comment/debate
C2 - 31883620
AN - SCOPUS:85077001083
SN - 0043-1354
VL - 169
JO - Water Research
JF - Water Research
M1 - 115408
ER -