Correction: Xiao et al. Techno-Economic Assessment of Electrochemical CO₂ Reduction to Ethylene: A Cu₁₀–Sn Catalyst Case Study and Performance Targets. Energies 2026, 19, 2462

Corrections to Table

In the original publication [1], there was a mistake in Table 2 as published. The flow rate of C₂H₄ product and H₂ byproduct was incorrect. Corrected

Table 2. Material balance for 100 tons/day C₂H₄ production (present work scenario).

Stream Component	Flow Rate (Tons/Day)	Notes
Inputs
Fresh CO2 feed	314.29	Stoichiometric requirement
Recycle CO2	1571.45	From cathode separation and anode separation
Total CO2 to cathode	1885.74	Feed + recycle
Water input	385.71
Outputs
C2H4 product	100.00	Target product
H2 byproduct	45.07	Based on FE balance (51.26% goes to H2)
CO2 converted	314.29
CO2 crossover (from cathode to anode)	1257.16	Crossover ratio = 4
CO2 recycle (cathode)	314.29	Unreacted CO2 recovered and recycled at the cathode
O2 produced (anode)	703.44	Based on a FE of 48.74%

appears below.

In the original publication, there was a mistake in Table 3 as published. j and the total cost of Cu₂-C-1100-4 and Ag@BIF-104 NSs(Cu) were incorrect, and there was a mistake in the legend, for there was a lack of detailed explanation regarding the method used to determine the current density values for each catalyst. Corrected

Table 3. Production cost comparison for different copper-based catalyst (present work scenario; for consistency, the current densities for each catalyst were rounded to three significant figures based on the values reported in the literature).

Catalyst	FE (%)	j (mA/cm2)	Total Cost (Thousand USD/Day)
Cu10-Sn (This work) [8]	48.74	246	592.61
CuO NS [20]	44.50	236	645.52
Cl-Cu2O [21]	32.00	431	720.08
Cu-Au NCAs [22]	43.20	196	704.12
h-Cu2O [16]	43.50	205	689.08
GMC-[Cu2(NTB)2] [23]	42.00	130	852.91
Cu/Cu2O(I) [24]	31.00	225	886.14
Cu2-C-1100-4 [25]	49.90	148	697.38
Cu-Ag/NC [26]	30.70	173	986.86
B-Cu2O [27]	26.13	200	1073.02
Cu@ZIF-8 NWs [28]	42.50	63.5	1250.79
Ag@BIF-104 NSs(Cu) [29]	21.43	203	1272.52
Cu-MOF-CF [30]	48.60	165	682.00

appears below.

Corrections to Citations

In the original publication, the following citations were not originally annotated in the source text but have now been added:

“3. Zhang, S.; Tang, W.; Yin, J.; Wang, S.; Yu, Y.; Huang, R.; Huo, E. Feasibility and Prospects of Electrocatalytic Conversion of CO₂ for Chemical Feedstock Production and Renewable Energy Storage. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2025, 13, 9841–9858. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.5c03472.” has now been inserted in Section 1, Introduction, Paragraph 1. and should read: “The increasing atmospheric CO₂ concentration has become a global environmental challenge, and the electrochemical reduction of CO₂ to high-value-added chemicals and fuels is regarded as a sustainable solution to mitigate carbon emissions while realizing carbon resource utilization [1–3]”.

“8. Wang, H.; Zhang, F.; Li, Y.; Pang, Y.; Zhao, X.; Song, Z.; Wang, W.; Sun, J.; Mao, Y. Sn-Modified Cu Nanosheets Catalyze CO₂ Reduction to C₂H₄ Efficiently by Stabilizing CO Intermediates and Promoting CC Coupling. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2025, 678, 506–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2024.09.117.” has now been inserted in Section 1, Introduction, Paragraph 4, and should read: “In recent years, significant progress has been made in the development of CO₂RR catalysts for C₂H₄ production, with copper-based catalysts being the most promising due to their unique ability to catalyze C–C coupling [7,8].”

“14. Aui, A.; Moore, T.; Li, W.; Sarkar, A.; Duoss, E.B.; Hahn, C.; Baker, S. Net-Zero Ethylene: On the Sustainability, Economics, and Scalability of Synthetic and Fossil Production Pathways. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2025, 13, 14714–14725. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.5c02596.” and “15. Kumar, B.; Muchharla, B.; Dikshit, M.; Dongare, S.; Kumar, K.; Gurkan, B.; Spurgeon, J.M. Electrochemical CO₂ Conversion Commercialization Pathways: A Concise Review on Experimental Frontiers and Technoeconomic Analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2024, 11, 1161–1174. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.4c00564.” have now been inserted in Table 1, assumptions for C₂H₄ FE.

“3. Zhang, S.; Tang, W.; Yin, J.; Wang, S.; Yu, Y.; Huang, R.; Huo, E. Feasibility and Prospects of Electrocatalytic Conversion of CO₂ for Chemical Feedstock Production and Renewable Energy Storage. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2025, 13, 9841–9858. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.5c03472.” was not cited. The citation has now been inserted in Table 1, assumptions for CO₂ price.

The following references were inappropriate and could lead to confusion and have therefore been removed:

“Pérez-Fortes, M.; Schöneberger, J.C.; Boulamanti, A.; Harrison, G.; Tzimas, E. Formic Acid Synthesis Using CO₂ as Raw Material: Techno-Economic and Environmental Evaluation and Market Potential. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2016, 41, 16444–16462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.05.199.” in Section 1, Introduction, Paragraph 7.

“Shi, R.; Guo, J.; Zhang, X.; Waterhouse, G.I.N.; Han, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Shang, L.; Zhou, C.; Jiang, L.; Zhang, T. Efficient Wettability-Controlled Electroreduction of CO₂ to CO at Au/C Interfaces. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 3028. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16847-9.” in Section 2.1.3, Model Assumptions, Paragraph 1.

“Da Cunha, S.C.; Resasco, J. Insights from Techno-Economic Analysis Can Guide the Design of Low-Temperature CO₂ Electrolyzers toward Industrial Scaleup. ACS Energy Lett. 2024, 9, 5550–5561. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.4c02647.” in Table 1, assumptions for Cell voltage.

“Romero Cuellar, N.S.; Scherer, C.; Kaçkar, B.; Eisenreich, W.; Huber, C.; Wiesner-Fleischer, K.; Fleischer, M.; Hinrichsen, O. Two-Step Electrochemical Reduction of CO₂ towards Multi-Carbon Products at High Current Densities. J. CO₂ Util. 2020, 36, 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2019.10.016.” in Section 3.2, Economic Analysis, Paragraph 2.

The following references were not appropriate in the original text and should be replaced with other references:

“Zhang, S.; Tang, W.; Yin, J.; Wang, S.; Yu, Y.; Huang, R.; Huo, E. Feasibility and Prospects of Electrocatalytic Conversion of CO₂ for Chemical Feedstock Production and Renewable Energy Storage. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2025, 13, 9841–9858. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.5c03472.” in Table 1, assumptions for Electricity price was incorrect and should instead be “1. Jouny, M.; Luc, W.; Jiao, F. General Techno-Economic Analysis of CO₂ Electrolysis Systems. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2018, 57, 2165–2177. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.7b03514.”

“Wang, H.; Zhang, F.; Li, Y.; Pang, Y.; Zhao, X.; Song, Z.; Wang, W.; Sun, J.; Mao, Y. Sn-Modified Cu Nanosheets Catalyze CO₂ Reduction to C₂H₄ Efficiently by Stabilizing CO Intermediates and Promoting CC Coupling. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2025, 678, 506–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2024.09.117.” in Table 1, assumptions for Single-pass conversion was incorrect and should instead be “6. Sisler, J.; Khan, S.; Ip, A.H.; Schreiber, M.W.; Jaffer, S.A.; Bobicki, E.R.; Dinh, C.-T.; Sargent, E.H. Ethylene Electrosynthesis: A Comparative Techno-Economic Analysis of Alkaline vs Membrane Electrode Assembly vs CO₂–CO–C₂H₄ Tandems. ACS Energy Lett. 2021, 6, 997–1002. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.0c02633.”

“Da Cunha, S.C.; Resasco, J. Insights from Techno-Economic Analysis Can Guide the Design of Low-Temperature CO₂ Electrolyzers toward Industrial Scaleup. ACS Energy Lett. 2024, 9, 5550–5561. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.4c02647.” in Table 1, assumptions for Electrolyzer cost was incorrect and should instead be “12. Moore, T.; Oyarzun, D.I.; Li, W.; Lin, T.Y.; Goldman, M.; Wong, A.A.; Jaffer, S.A.; Sarkar, A.; Baker, S.E.; Duoss, E.B.; et al. Electrolyzer Energy Dominates Separation Costs in State-of-the-Art CO₂ Electrolyzers: Implications for Single-Pass CO₂ Utilization. Joule 2023, 7, 782–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2023.03.015.”

“Feng, J.; Badreldin, A.; Li, Y. Electrochemical CO₂ Reduction to Multicarbon Fuels and Chemicals: Progress and Prospects of Tandem Electrolyzer Strategies. Energy Fuels 2025, 39, 21175–21225. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5c04464.” and “Shao, P.; Zhang, H.-X.; Hong, Q.-L.; Yi, L.; Li, Q.-H.; Zhang, J. Enhancing CO₂ Electroreduction to Ethylene via Copper−Silver Tandem Catalyst in Boron-Imidazolate Framework Nanosheet. Adv. Energy Mater. 2023, 13, 2300088. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202300088.” in Section 2.1.3, Model Assumptions, Paragraph 5. were incorrect and should instead be “16. Jun, M.; Kwak, C.; Lee, S.Y.; Joo, J.; Kim, J.M.; Im, D.J.; Cho, M.K.; Baik, H.; Hwang, Y.J.; Kim, H.; et al. Microfluidics-Assisted Synthesis of Hierarchical Cu₂O Nanocrystal as C₂ -Selective CO₂ Reduction Electrocatalyst. Small Methods 2022, 6, e2200074. https://doi.org/10.1002/smtd.202200074.”

“Jun, M.; Kwak, C.; Lee, S.Y.; Joo, J.; Kim, J.M.; Im, D.J.; Cho, M.K.; Baik, H.; Hwang, Y.J.; Kim, H.; et al. Microfluidics-Assisted Synthesis of Hierarchical Cu₂O Nanocrystal as C₂ -Selective CO₂ Reduction Electrocatalyst. Small Methods 2022, 6, e2200074. https://doi.org/10.1002/smtd.202200074.” and “Vos, J.; Ibarra-Gonzalez, P.; Burdyny, T.; Ramírez, A. Towards Fossil-Free Ethylene: Ex-Ante Techno-Economic Comparison of Three Alternative Processes at Low Technology Readiness Levels. J. Clean. Prod. 2026, 545, 147746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2026.147746.” in Section 4, Conclusions, Paragraph 3. were incorrect and should instead be “6. Sisler, J.; Khan, S.; Ip, A.H.; Schreiber, M.W.; Jaffer, S.A.; Bobicki, E.R.; Dinh, C.-T.; Sargent, E.H. Ethylene Electrosynthesis: A Comparative Techno-Economic Analysis of Alkaline vs Membrane Electrode Assembly vs CO₂–CO–C₂H₄ Tandems. ACS Energy Lett. 2021, 6, 997–1002. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.0c02633.”

Text Correction

There was an error in the original publication. “The current market price for MEA electrolysis cells is $600 per kilowatt, indicating near-industrialization but not mass production yet” was not entirely correct. A correction has been made to Section 2.1.3, Model Assumptions, Paragraph 4: “The price of an MEA electrolyzer under present work scenario is based on $600 per kilowatt, indicating near-industrialization but not mass production yet [12].”

There was an error in the original publication. “Substitute the current density and FE values from Table 1 (the case study in this paper) with those from Table 2 (the catalysts) to calculate the cost of the catalysts listed in Table 2.” was not entirely correct. A correction has been made to Section 3.2, Economic Analysis, Paragraph 4: “Substitute the current density and FE values from Table 1 (the case study in this paper) with those from Table 3 (the catalysts) to calculate the cost of the catalysts listed in Table 3.”

There was an error in the original publication. “This cost is approximately 8.2% lower than the next best catalyst (CuO NS) and 53.3% lower than the highest cost catalyst (Ag@BIF-104 NSs(Cu)).” was not entirely correct. A correction has been made to Section 3.2, Economic Analysis, Paragraph 4: “This cost is approximately 8.2% lower than the next best catalyst (CuO NS) and 53.4% lower than the highest cost catalyst (Ag@BIF-104 NSs(Cu)).”

There was an error in the original publication. “As shown in Figure 8, the FE of C₂H₄ has the greatest impact on electricity costs.” was not entirely correct. A correction has been made to Section 3.4, Sensitivity Analysis, Paragraph 2: “As shown in Figure 7, the FE of C₂H₄ has the greatest impact on electricity costs.”

With this correction, the order of some references has been adjusted accordingly. The cross-referencing of citations has been optimized, and subsequent reference numbers and corresponding in-text citations have been reordered and standardized as needed.

The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.