Correction to “Diblock Rings as Topological Adhesives at Immiscible Polymer Interfaces”

In our recent letter “Diblock Rings as Topological Adhesives at Immiscible Polymer Interfaces” (ACS Macro Lett. 2024, 13, 1311–1317), (1) the shear strain γ used in the analysis of the four systems labeled R100-48, R100-480, L50-96, and L50-960 was incorrect. γ is defined as the relative displacement of the two layers along the x-direction divided by the spacing (L_z – 10σ_LJ) between the layers. For these four systems, L_z = 180.5σ_LJ as listed in Table 1 of the original article. However, L_z = 120.5σ_LJ for the bulk sample was mistakenly used in the calculation. As a result, γ is greater than the correct value for these four systems. This systematically shifts the shear stress–strain curve to higher values of γ and reduces the strain hardening modulus, which corresponds to the slope of the curve at large γ. This error does not change the main conclusion of the manuscript, which states that diblock rings are a new, effective adhesive for immiscible polymer interfaces. Below is a list of corrections to the figures and text affected by this error. Correction 1: Figure 2a on page 1313 of the original article is replaced with Figure 1. Figure 1. Shear stress–strain curves for systems reinforced with shorter diblock rings, compared to the results for the bulk and immiscible interface. Correction 2: On page 1313 of the original article, the correct discussion of the strain hardening modulus is as follows. “The hardening modulus for the postyield regime, as reflected in the slope of the stress–strain curve at large γ, is similar for shorter (Figure 2a) and longer (Figure 2b) diblock copolymers, both close to the bulk value.” Correction 3: Figure 3a and b on page 1314 of the original article are replaced with Figure 2. Figure 2. Evolution of the fractions of diblock rings in different categories with increasing γ for (a) R100-48 and (b) R100-480. Correction 4: On page 1314 of the original article, the value of γ when referring to Figure 3a is corrected as follows. “Upon shearing, the fractions vary slowly until γ ≈ 0.8.” Correction 5: On page 1314 of the original article, one value of γ when referring to Figure 3b is corrected as follows. “From the initial state, the fractions of the three types of rings remain almost unchanged until γ ≈ 0.5.” Correction 6: On page 1314 of the original article, another value of γ when referring to Figure 3b is corrected as follows. “By γ = 5.6, the fraction of broken homopolymer chains is 0.09.” Correction 7: On pages 1314–1315 of the original article, the comparison of Figure 3a and Figure 3c is corrected as follows. “Upon shearing, the dominant failure mechanism is still the breaking of diblock rings, while γ_p increases as N_R doubles.” Correction 8: On page 1315 of the original article, the comparison of Figure 3a and Figure 3c is corrected as follows. “This increase agrees with higher γ_p and thus higher σ_p as N_R doubles.” Correction 9: Figure 4a and b on page 1315 of the original article are replaced with Figure 3. Figure 3. Evolution of the fractions of diblock linear chains in different categories with increasing γ for (a) L50-96 and (b) L50-960. Correction 10: On pages 1315–1316 of the original article, the discussion regarding the role of diblock chain length is revised as follows. “The strain hardening modulus, as reflected in the slope of the postyield shear stress–strain curve (Figure 2), is close to the bulk value for R100 and R200. However, γ_p for R100 is smaller than that for R200, preventing the recovery of bulk shear stress beyond γ_p.” We are grateful to Mr. Haoliu Chen and Dr. Mesfin Tsige for their sustained interest in our work and for their correspondence over recent months. Their meticulous efforts and inquiries ultimately contributed to the identification of the error. This article references 1 other publications. This article has not yet been cited by other publications.