Correction: Gómez-Cruz et al. Valorisation of Exhausted Olive Pomace by an Eco-Friendly Solvent Extraction Process of Natural Antioxidants. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 1010

The author wishes to make the following correction to this paper [1].

In the original article, there was a mistake in the calculation of the antioxidant activity measured by ABTS assay for runs of the experimental design (

Table 3. Box–Benhken experimental design in terms of actual and coded factors applied to the aqueous extraction conditions and experimental values of the response variables.

Run	T	t	B	Yield (%)	Phenolic Concentration (g/L)	TPC (mg GAE/g EOP)	TFC (mg RE/g EOP)	DPPH (mg TE/g EOP)	ABTS (mg TE/g EOP)	FRAP (mg TE/g EOP)
	25 (−1)	60 (0)	25 (1)	28.7	6.7	28.8	82.7	25.8	61.63	28.7
2	55 (0)	60 (0)	15 (0)	30.6	4.6	32.9	100.1	34.5	66.19	34.8
3	55 (0)	30 (−1)	25 (1)	28.7	6.0	25.8	78.5	26.3	58.40	29.8
4	85 (1)	90 (1)	15 (0)	34.5	5.2	37.0	106.6	42.1	89.40	43.7
5	55 (0)	60 (0)	15 (0)	32.1	4.8	34.3	97.7	35.7	71.44	38.1
6	85 (1)	60 (0)	25 (1)	33.6	7.4	31.7	94.6	26.6	73.88	39.4
7	85 (1)	30 (−1)	15 (0)	32.0	4.7	33.4	104.5	39.7	77.87	40.9
8	55 (0)	60 (0)	15 (0)	32.9	4.9	35.2	113.4	39.7	73.88	40.7
9	25 (−1)	60 (0)	5 (−1)	27.7	1.4	38.0	148.7	44.1	72.44	37.6
10	55 (0)	90 (1)	25 (1)	31.9	7.1	30.6	86.5	26.4	65.69	29.1
11	25 (−1)	30 (−1)	15 (0)	26.9	3.6	25.8	90.7	31.4	58.44	25.1
12	55 (0)	90 (1)	5 (−1)	35.6	2.0	43.6	155.6	46.4	81.31	41.6
13	55 (0)	30 (−1)	5 (−1)	30.6	1.9	41.2	153.4	46.5	78.38	43.7
14	55 (0)	60 (0)	15 (0)	32.1	4.9	34.9	104.2	36.9	74.81	35.1
15	85 (1)	60 (0)	5 (−1)	33.2	1.9	41.2	157.6	49.2	87.81	42.3
16	25 (−1)	90 (1)	15 (0)	29.9	4.2	29.7	95.6	33.6	67.69	30.9
17	55 (0)	60 (0)	15 (0)	33.0	4.9	35.0	102.7	37.8	83.06	36.5

T: temperature (°C); t: extraction time (min); B: solid loading (%, w/v).

,

Table 4. Mathematical models and coefficients for the responses using coded values.

Dependent Variables	Models	CV (%)	R2	Adjusted R2	F-Value	Lack of Fit (p-Values)
Extraction yield (%)	31.9 + 2.52∙T + 1.67∙t − 1.07∙T2 (Equation (1))	2.63	0.902	0.875	33.71	0.762
Phenolic concentration (g GAE/L)	4.50 + 0.41∙T + 0.28∙t + 2.50∙B (Equation (2))	7.74	0.970	0.964	143.30	0.020
TPC (mg GAE/g EOP)	34.83 + 4.03∙T + 1.83∙t − 7.12∙B + 2.35∙T∙B − 3.03∙T2 (Equation (3))	2.76	0.979	0.967	83.44	0.486
TFC (mg RE/g EOP)	100.26 + 5.69∙T − 32.95∙B + 20.61∙B2 (Equation (4))	2.04	0.994	0.993	644.61	0.815
DPPH (mg TE/g EOP)	36.45 + 2.82∙T − 10.13∙B (Equation (5))	4.27	0.966	0.960	182.27	0.497
ABTS (mg TE/g EOP)	73.15 + 8.67∙T + 3.87∙t − 7.49∙B (Equation (6))	3.22	0.833	0.791	19.90	0.9413
FRAP (mg TE/g EOP)	37.08 + 5.40∙T − 5.50∙B (Equation (7))	5.69	0.861	0.838	37.27	0.743

and

Table 5. Real and predicted values by the mathematical model for the responses.

	Predicted Values	Experimental Values
Extraction yield (%)	35.0	40.9 ± 0.54
Phenolic concentration (g GAE/L)	3.7	4.5 ± 0.03
TPC (mg GAE/g EOP)	40.5	44.5 ± 0.25
TFC (mg RE/g EOP)	132.4	114.9 ± 0.39
DPPH (mg TE/g EOP)	45.2	36.1 ± 0.36
ABTS (mg TE/g EOP)	89.5	95.4 ± 0.72
FRAP (mg TE/g EOP)	45.7	47.6 ± 0.24

and Figure 2b). All values of ABTS corresponding to the experimental design of the aqueous extraction have been corrected by multiplying by 0.626.

The authors apologise for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original article has been updated.