Correction to “Stacking Faults Assist Lithium-Ion Conduction in a Halide-Based Superionic Conductor”

Summary of corrections: A typographical error needs to be corrected in the Results section, subsection “2.5. Evaluation of Li⁺ Ion Conduction Properties”, fourth paragraph, where the activation energy barriers derived from PFG-NMR were swapped for components 1 and 2, for both BM-LYC and SS-LYC. The same error should also corrected in the second paragraph of the Discussion section. Page 5804, left column: “The derived activation energies for ion migration in BM-LYC are 0.25 ± 0.01 eV and 0.18 ± 0.03 eV (all confidence intervals listed are 1σ) for components 1 and 2, respectively. For SS-LYC, these are 0.57 ± 0.09 eV and 0.48 ± 0.1 eV.” The new version should read: “The derived activation energies for ion migration in BM-LYC are 0.18 ± 0.03 eV and 0.25 ± 0.01 eV (all confidence intervals listed are 1σ) for components 1 and 2, respectively. For SS-LYC, these are 0.48 ± 0.1 eV and 0.57 ± 0.09 eV.” This error propagates in the second paragraph of the Discussion section, page 5805, left column: “Since c-axis conduction usually has a lower migration barrier, component 1 is assigned to diffusion along the c-axis and component 2 to ab-plane diffusion. For the ball milled sample, both components exhibit much lower activation energy barriers than that of bulk Li⁺ conduction measured by EIS (0.25 ± 0.01 eV and 0.18 ± 0.03 eV vs 0.41 ± 0.006 eV).” The correct version is “Since c-axis conduction usually has a lower migration barrier, component 1 is assigned to diffusion along the c-axis and component 2 to ab-plane diffusion. For the ball milled sample, both components exhibit much lower activation energy barriers than that of bulk Li⁺ conduction measured by EIS (0.18 ± 0.03 eV and 0.25 ± 0.01 eV vs 0.41 ± 0.006 eV).” The conclusions of the study are not affected by these changes. This article has not yet been cited by other publications.