Abstract

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. 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 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 (ν=0.1 V s−1). The potential was scanned first toward positive values and then toward negative ones.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.