Correction: de Freitas et al. Cleaner Production of Cementitious Materials Containing Bioaggregates Based on Mussel Shells: A Review. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5577

The authors would like to make the following corrections about the published paper [1]. The changes are as follows:

The authors added reference citations in the caption of Figures 1, 2 and 4–19. All of the new Figure captions are listed below.

• Figure 1. Bioaggregate produced from mussel shells [4].
• Figure 2. (a) Shells on the beach of Sidi Salem, Algeria; (b) Disposal of mussel shells on Recife beach, Brazil [17].
• Figure 4. Diffractography of mussel shells from two species: (A) C. bensoni and (B) L. marginalis. Key: a = aragonite; c = calcite [7].
• Figure 5. Scheme showing the inner faces (Nacre) that are rich in prismatic aragonite and calcite crystals and the outer face of the mussel shell [19].
• Figure 6. A profile of a section the shell of the freshwater mussel Unio pictorum [47].
• Figure 7. Thermogravimetric analysis curve for powdered mussel shells [19].
• Figure 8. Burning process of micronized mussel shells [7].
• Figure 9. Comparative analysis of diffractograms and thermographic derivatives [56].
• Figure 10. Schematic model of the low-cost retention filter with high efficiency in phosphate adsorption (PO4³⁻) [66].
• Figure 11. Examples of mollusk shells with micrographs of their associated calcified shells presented side by side on a 1 μm scale. (A) Nucula sulcata (Bivalvia, Protobranchia, Nuculoida); (B) Nacreous layer of Nucula sulcata; (C) Mytilus edulis (Bivalvia, Pteriomorphia, Mytiloida); (D) Nacro-prismatic transition in Mytilus edulis; (E) Neotrigonia sp. (Bivalvia, Palaeoheterodonta, Trigonioida); (F) The nacro-prismatic transition in Neotrigonia sp.; (G) Nacre tablets in Neotrigonia sp.; (H) Juvenile Pinna (Bivalvia, Pteriomorphia, Pterioida); (I) Border of the prismatic layer; (J) Growing nacre tablets; (K) Haliotis tuberculate (Gastropoda, Vetigastropoda, Haliotidae); (L) Columnar nacre of Haliotis tuberculate; (M) Strombus giga (Gastropoda, Caenogastropoda); (N) Crossed-lamellar shell microstructure of Strombus gigas; (O) Helix pomatia (Gastropoda, Stylommatophora); (P) Crossed-lamellar shell microstructure of Helix pomatia; (Q) Nautilus macromphalus (Cephalopoda, Nautilida); (R) Nacre tablets in Nautilus macromphalus [47].
• Figure 12. Particle size analysis of bioaggregates using parametric curves [7].
• Figure 13. Surface morphology of particles of limestone, Portland cement, and mussel shell [56].
• Figure 14. ITZ (paste–aggregate transition interface) for mussel shell [79].
• Figure 15. Comparison of the cement mass–particle transition interface of RCD and for mussel shell [90].
• Figure 16. Cleaning and washing the mussel shell: (a) the first cycle; (b) the second cycle; and (c) the third wash cycle [4].
• Figure 17. Water absorption coefficient by capillary action of mortars with bioaggregates, where BC represents mortars with lower cement content and SC higher cement content [15].
• Figure 18. (a) Compressive strength of different types of bioaggregates before cleaning; (b) Compressive strength of different types of bioaggregates after the cleaning process [88].
• Figure 19. Relationship between density and thermal conductivity of mortars containing mussel shell bioaggregates [49].

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