Correction: Fang et al. Study on Dispersion, Adsorption, and Hydration Effects of Polycarboxylate Superplasticizers with Different Side Chain Structures in Reference Cement and Belite Cement. Materials 2023, 16, 4168

In the original publication [...].


Error in Table
In the original publication [1], there were some minor mistakes in the Tables 1, 3, 6 and 8 because of the authors' negligence.The correct Tables 1, 3, 6, and 8 appear below:   There was a mistake in Table 10 as published.Four images were selected incorrectly, the time information was deleted from the SEM images, and the scale bars were consistently retained.The corrected Table 10 appears below: There was a mistake in Table 10 as published.Four images were selected incorrectly, the time information was deleted from the SEM images, and the scale bars were consistently retained.The corrected Table 10 appears below: There was a mistake in Table 10 as published.Four images were selected incorrectly, the time information was deleted from the SEM images, and the scale bars were consistently retained.The corrected Table 10 appears below: There was a mistake in Table 10 as published.Four images were selected incorrectly, the time information was deleted from the SEM images, and the scale bars were consistently retained.The corrected Table 10 appears below:

Text Correction
In the original publication [1], there were some mistakes because of the authors' negligence.
A correction has been made to Section 2.2.1 Gel Permeation Chromatography, Paragraph 1: The temperature was maintained at 25 °C, and a 0.1 mol/L NaNO3 aqueous solution with a pH of 7 was used as the eluent, with dextran of different molecular weights as the calibration standards.PCE was diluted to 5 mg/mL with a 0.1 mol/L sodium nitrate solution.GPC was performed using a Waters 1515 instrument (Waters, Milford, MA, USA) equipped with a differential refractive index detector.Additionally, a multi-detection system (Malvern Viscotek 270 Dual Detector) equipped with viscosity and low-angle laser light-scattering detectors was utilized.
A correction has been made to Section 2.2.1 Gel Permeation Chromatography, Paragraph 3: The content of C3S, C2S, C3A, C4AF, and CaSO4 in the two types of cement was calculated based on the data in Table 1, and the results are presented in Table 3.A comparison of the mineral compositions of the two types of cement reveals that the content of C3S, C4AF, and CaSO4 in the RC is higher by 36.3%, 0.23%, and 0.66%, respectively, while the

Text Correction
In the original publication [1], there were some mistakes because of the authors' negligence.
A correction has been made to Section 2.2.1.Gel Permeation Chromatography, Paragraph 1: The temperature was maintained at 25 • C, and a 0.1 mol/L NaNO 3 aqueous solution with a pH of 7 was used as the eluent, with dextran of different molecular weights as the calibration standards.PCE was diluted to 5 mg/mL with a 0.1 mol/L sodium nitrate solution.GPC was performed using a Waters 1515 instrument (Waters, Milford, MA, USA) equipped with a differential refractive index detector.Additionally, a multi-detection system (Malvern Viscotek 270 Dual Detector) equipped with viscosity and low-angle laser light-scattering detectors was utilized.
A correction has been made to Section 2.1.1.Cement, Paragraph 3: The content of C 3 S, C 2 S, C 3 A, C 4 AF, and CaSO 4 in the two types of cement was calculated based on the data in Table 1, and the results are presented in Table 3.A comparison of the mineral compositions of the two types of cement reveals that the content of C 3 S, C 4 AF, and CaSO 4 in the RC is higher by 36.3%, 0.23%, and 0.66%, respectively, while the C 2 S content in the RC is lower by 33.9% compared to that in the LC.

Figure 5 .
Figure 5. Five stages of hydration heat release.

Figure 7 .
Figure 7. Rheological properties of different water reducers in two types of cement slurries: (a) shear rate-shear stress; (b) shear rate-apparent viscosity.

Figure 7 .Figure 13 .
Figure 7. Rheological properties of different water reducers in two types of cement slurry: (a) shear rate-shear stress; (b) shear rate-apparent viscosity.

Figure 13 .
Figure 13.Schematic diagram of the hydration mechanism.

Table 6 .
Fitting results of Bingham, Herschel-Bulkley, and modified Bingham models for the rheological curves of different PCE in two types of cement slurry.

Table 8 .
Parameters of hydration heat-release curves of different PCEs in two types of cement.

Table 10 .
Morphological analysis of hydration products of RC and LC with different water reducers at 12 h and 3 d.

Table 10 .
Morphological analysis of hydration products of RC and LC with different water reducers at 12 h and 3 d.

Table 10 .
Morphological analysis of hydration products of RC and LC with different water reducers at 12 h and 3 d.

Table 10 .
Morphological analysis of hydration products of RC and LC with different water reducers at 12 h and 3 d.