Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1604015 Figure 3h in the originally published article is hereby corrected. In the originally published article, the representation is incomplete. The experimental data essentially show two maxima, which refer to Ni–P bonds and impurity effects, respectively. For simplicity only the major contributors to these maxima were indicated. On the other hand—and this is the misleading point—the fitted spectrum that was presented takes account of the fine-structure (in particular of the clearly visible shoulder in between the peaks) and is the complete superposition of the two spin-orbit split components of various chemical species (stemming from Ni–P bonds and from impurity effects caused by contamination with oxygen and/or carbon), and naturally not only of the two major components shown. The exact deconvolution is given in the new figure here. As contributions by impurities were clearly addressed in the original text, the interpretation and conclusions are not at all affected by this point. Nonetheless the authors would like to apologize for any possible confusion as a result. The authors would like to take this opportunity to also acknowledge the Scientific Facility Interface Analysis headed by Ulrich Starke. The authors thank in particular Kathrin Müller for performing the X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) measurements using a Kratos Axis Ultra system equipped with a monochromatized Al Kα X-ray source (photon energy 1486.7 eV) and for the exact data evaluation and fitting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: