Correction: Michielsen, I. et al. Altering Conversion and Product Selectivity of Dry Reforming of Methane in a Dielectric Barrier Discharge by Changing the Dielectric Packing Material. Catalysts 2019, 9 , 51

We have found some inadvertent errors in our paper published in Catalysts [...]

We have found some inadvertent errors in our paper published in Catalysts [1]. Amendments need to be made to Figure 1 and the sentences referring to the comparison of CO2 conversion in DRM (dry reforming of methane) versus the previously published CO2 splitting data [2]. Indeed, there were some mistakes in the datapoints in the original Figure 1, referring to previously published results from CO2 splitting [2], caused by copy-pasting datapoints in the layout of the figure, with incorrect ordering of the datapoints. The datapoints on CO2 conversion in DRM, as obtained for the original article [1], were however correct and remain unaltered.
The corrected Figure 1 should be as follows: In Figure 1, all datapoints with full bars, referring to CO2 splitting data from [2], have been corrected, except for two values that were correct (1.25-1.4 mm ZrO2 and 2.0-2.4 mm BaTiO3).
To show the numerical data, the differences between the mistake in the datapoints and the corrected data from Figure 1 are provided in Table 1. Table 1. The correct datapoints of CO2 conversion in the CO2 splitting reaction from [2] (green corrected data column) in relation to those that were mistakenly put (previous data with error) in Figure 1. Those that cause the largest differences are marked in red. Besides Figure 1, also some parts of the text need to be amended, where a comparison is made between the data of CO2 conversion in DRM (dry reforming of methane) versus the corrected CO2 splitting data [2], based on Figure 1.

Corrected Data
In the text, the sentence on page 16, in penultimate paragraph, "Our experiments clearly reveal that the absolute CO2 conversion is also higher for DRM than for CO2 splitting, with the exception of BaTiO3 and 2.0-2.24 mm ZrO2 packing" should read, "Our experiments clearly reveal that the absolute CO2 conversion is also higher for DRM than for CO2 splitting, with the exception of BaTiO3." In the text, the last paragraph of Section 2.1 on page 16, starting with, "For DRM in the packed reactor, the CO2 conversion is always higher when using SiO2 and α-Al2O3 packing materials…" should read, "For DRM in the packed reactor, the CO2 conversion is always higher when using SiO2, ZrO2 and α-Al2O3 packing materials than for pure CO2 splitting. However, the enhancement of the CO2 conversion due to CH4 depends on the size and chemistry of the spherical packing material. Finally, CH4 addition has a clearly negative effect on all BaTiO3 packing materials. Thus, although BaTiO3 in general performs best for CO2 splitting, compared to the other packing materials, it yields the worst results for DRM." In the text, the sentence on page 25, in penultimate paragraph preceding the Materials and Methods, starting with "Nevertheless, the above reasoning is only a first hypothesis, as other materials exhibiting a lower CO2 conversion in case of DRM versus pure CO2 splitting (i.e., ZrO2 with bead size of 2.0-2.24 mm)…" is no longer necessary as the ZrO2 splitting data do not present lower CO2 conversion in DRM versus pure CO2 splitting in the corrected Figure 1, which thus eliminates the anomaly in our theory. Of course, it is still true that further experiments and extensive modeling are needed to substantiate the results further. The text should thus read: "Nevertheless, this is still a hypothesis which needs further experimental and modeling proof to substantiate it and reveal the underlying mechanisms." We regret that the comparative data for CO2 splitting from the previous publication [2] in Figure  1 were represented in the wrong way. However, all new data on DRM were correct. Fortunately, this error has no impact on the overall results and/or conclusions reported in the original paper and it even solves some deviation in our hypotheses. Hence, the conclusions made in the original paper remain valid. We apologize for any inconvenience caused to the readers.

Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.