Correction: Chan et al. Analysis of the Synergies of Cutting Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in an Integrated Iron and Steel Enterprise in China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13231

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

In the previous calculations, there was a mistake in the approach. The error was identified through data analysis. In the environmental impact of the upstream process, the environmental effects of other processes should not be negative.

A correction has been made to Section 3. Results and Discussion, 3.2. Key Process and Key Factor Analysis, Paragraphs 5 and 6:

Table 5 shows the proportion of EI of continuous-casting steel billet production processes and upstream processes within the scope. The proportion of EI of the internal steel production process for GWP reached 20.59%, indicating that all internal production processes of the iron and steel enterprise would have a significant impact on global warming. You et al. indicated that the component production stage is the main contributor to carbon emissions, accounting for 60% to 73% of carbon emissions of the whole life cycle [33]. Furthermore, the coal production process also had high EI in terms of ADP fossil, MAETP, and GWP, accounting for 24.73%, 18.21% and 5.39% of the total EI, respectively. In general, the purchased electric power would bring certain environmental impacts in terms of MAETP, with an EI proportion of 12.19%. Except for this, the proportions of the iron ore production process and transportation process were relatively low, and thus, the EIs they contributed were also low.

From Table 5, the processes of steel production, coal production, and purchased power production had a high proportion of EI on various environmental impact indicators, and their environmental impact proportions were 31.67%, 52.18%, and 15.13%, respectively, identified as key processes. Thus, the coal and power provided for the steel production process were identified as key factors. Ding et al. showed that during the processing phase, the main contributors to environmental impacts were the use of coal for power generation and steam production [34]. Further combining this with the analysis in Table 4, it can be seen that the environmental impacts mainly came from self-owned power plants, coking, and iron-making departments, and were mainly reflected in GWP, ADP (fossil), AP, and EP. The EIs accounted for 39.63%, 16.33%, and 33.24%, respectively. These indicators were closely related to the emissions of air pollutants and GHGs. Therefore, CO₂, SO₂, NO_x, and PM emitted during steel production are listed as key factors.

The corrected

Table 5. Proportion of environmental impact of steel production process and upstream processes in the iron and steel complex. The four upstream processes included iron ore mining and production, coal mining and production, iron ore and coal transportation, and upstream power production.

Environmental Impact Indicator	Abbreviation	Purchased Power	Steel Production Process	Transportation Process	Coal Production Process	Iron Ore Production Process	Subtotal of Indicators
Abiotic depletion	ADP element	0.031%	0.00%	1.7 × 10−5%	0.11%	0.054%	0.19%
Abiotic depletion (fossil fuels)	ADP fossil	0.74%	0.17%	7.35 × 10−5%	24.73%	0.11%	25.76%
Global warming (GWP100a)	GWP	1.43%	20.59%	5.52 × 10−5%	5.39%	0.098%	27.52%
Human toxicity	HTP	0.092%	0.11%	7.47 × 10−6%	0.28%	0.041%	0.52%
Freshwater aquatic ecotox.	FAETP	0.0098%	0.00%	1.31 × 10−6%	0.09%	0.010%	0.12%
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity	MAETP	12.19%	0.00%	1.88 × 10−4%	18.21%	0.58%	30.98%
Terrestrial ecotoxicity	TETP	0.025%	0.00%	2.31 × 10−6%	0.097%	0.054%	0.18%
Photochemical oxidation	POCP	0.088%	0.079%	7.72 × 10−6%	0.96%	0.017%	1.14%

appears below.

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