Correction to “Investigation of CuO/ITO Photoelectrode Fabricated by PVD for Efficient Photoelectrochemical Water Splitting and Hydrogen Evolution” (Luminescence, (2024), 39, 11, 10.1002/bio.70020)

Abstract

Junaid, M., Noor-ul-Ain, Sharaf, M., El-Meligy, M. and Ahmad, N. (2024), Investigation of CuO/ITO Photoelectrode Fabricated by PVD for Efficient Photoelectrochemical Water Splitting and Hydrogen Evolution. Luminescence, 39: e70020, https://doi.org/10.1002/bio.70020. In the Abstract section, the following sentences contain incorrect details: FTIR study showed the stretching, vibration, and the functional group of the deposited CuO thin film; the broad band of stretching of Cu-O in monoclinic CuO was observed at the range of 500–700 cm.−1 The hydrogen generation rate was also calculated by electrochemical cell and observed to be 5325.21 mol.g−1 for 6 h. These should read as follows: FTIR study showed the stretching, vibration, and the functional group of the deposited CuO thin film; the broad band of stretching of Cu-O in monoclinic CuO was observed in the range of 600–1000 cm−1. The hydrogen generation rate was also calculated by electrochemical cell and observed to be 5325.21 mol.g−1.for 8 h. In the Experimental Analysis section, the sentence “X-ray diffraction (XRD) was used to determine their structural properties, while Nova Nano SEM was used to analyze their morphological properties.” should read as “X-ray diffraction (XRD) was used to determine their structural properties, while Cube II Emcraft South Korea) setup is used to analyze their morphological properties.” Figure 2a, b–d is incorrect. The correct figures are as follows: Figure 2a: (Figure presented.) Figure 2 a: XRD patterns of deposited CuO thin film on ITO substrate. Figures 3 b, c and d: (Figure presented.) Figure 3 b: SEM analysis of CuO. Figure c: SEM analysis of CuO. (Figure presented.) In the Hydrogen Generation Measurement section, the sentence “The hydrogen production rate of CuO under a xenon lamp was noted to be 5325.21 mol.g-1.6h-1 which is higher than other materials” should read as “The hydrogen production rate of CuO under a xenon lamp was noted to be 5325.21 mol.g−1.8h−1 which is higher than other materials.” Additionally, the last sentence in the Conclusion section, originally written as “The hydrogen evolution of CuO under solar spectra was examined and recorded as 5325.21 mol. g-1.6h-1.” should read as “The hydrogen evolution of CuO under solar spectra was examined and recorded as 5325.21 mol.g−1.8h−1.” We apologize for these errors.