Author Correction: Predicting biomass global warming potential with FT-NIR spectroscopy (Scientific Reports, (2025), 15, 1, (33725), 10.1038/s41598-025-10584-z)

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorGyawali, Prakash
dc.contributor.authorShrestha, Bijendra
dc.contributor.authorPhanomsophon, Thitima
dc.contributor.authorPosom, Jetsada
dc.contributor.authorPornchaloempong, Pimpen
dc.contributor.authorSirisomboon, Panmanas
dc.contributor.authorShrestha, Bim Prasad
dc.contributor.authorFunke, Axel
dc.date.accessioned2026-08-06T10:56:30Z
dc.date.available2026-08-06T10:56:30Z
dc.date.issued2026-12-01
dc.description.abstractCorrection to: Scientific Reportshttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-10584-z, published online 30 September 2025 The original version of this Article contained errors. In the original version of this article, the climate-carbon effect value was not included as introduced in AR6. As a result, in the Materials and methods section, under the subheading ‘Estimation of global warming potential and emission of greenhouse gas (GHG)’, where: “Step 1: (CO<inf>2</inf>, CH<inf>4</inf>, N<inf>2</inf>O) emissions (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × Carbon emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) Step 2: Total GWP = (GWP of CO<inf>2</inf>×CO<inf>2</inf> emissions) +(GWP of CH<inf>4</inf>×CH<inf>4</inf> emissions) +(GWP of N<inf>2</inf>O×N<inf>2</inf>O emissions)” now reads: “Step 1: GHG (CO<inf>2</inf>, CH<inf>4</inf>, or N<inf>2</inf>O) emissions (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × Specific GHG emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) Step 2: Total GWP (kg CO<inf>2</inf>e) = (GWP of CO<inf>2</inf>×CO<inf>2</inf> emissions) + (GWP of CH<inf>4</inf>×CH<inf>4</inf> emissions) + (GWP of N<inf>2</inf>O×N<inf>2</inf>O emissions)” In addition, under the subheading ‘Model development and validation’, where: “The model was optimized by selecting wavenumbers through various variable selection methods, including the Correlation Method (CM), Variance Method (VM), Co-Variance Method (COVM), and Variable Importance Projection (VIP). The spectral data were pretreated using raw spectra, standard normal variate (SNV), as well as first derivative and second derivative transformations. The following spectra pretreatment methods: Standard Normal Variate (SNV) is for corrects scatter effects and baseline variations<sup>35</sup>,” now reads: “The model was optimized by selecting wavenumbers through various variable selection methods, including the Correlation Method (CM), Variance Method (VM), Co-Variance Method (COVM), and Variable Importance Projection (VIP). The following spectra pretreatment methods: Standard Normal Variate (SNV) is for correcting scatter effects and baseline variations<sup>35</sup>,” In addition, Equations 3, 4 and 6 contained typesetting errors. As a result, Equation 3: (Formula presented.) now reads, (Formula presented.) Equation 4: (Formula presented.) now reads: (Formula presented.) And Equation 6 (Formula presented.) now reads: (Formula presented.) Furthermore, under the Results section, subheading ‘Predicting performance of biomass GWP using PLSR’, where: “The model developed with CM (reduction of 1150 wavenumber of full range to 325 wavenumber) of 1st derivative spectra, gave best performance with R<sup>2</sup><inf>P</inf> was 0.87 (Table 4).” now reads: “The model developed with COVM (reduction of 1150 wavenumber of full range to 325 wavenumber) of 1st derivative spectra, gave the best performance with R<sup>2</sup><inf>P</inf> was 0.85 (Table 4).” Under the subheading ‘Prediction result of HHV using PLSR’, where: “This approach reduced the number of variables from 1150 to 365 wavenumbers, significantly enhancing the model’s performance (R<sup>2</sup><inf>C</inf> of 0.98 and R<sup>2</sup><inf>P</inf> of 0.87)” now reads: “This approach reduced the number of variables from 1150 to 365 wavenumbers, significantly enhancing the model’s performance (R<sup>2</sup><inf>C</inf> of 0.98 and R<sup>2</sup><inf>P</inf> of 0.86)” Under the subheading ‘Regression coefficient and x-loading of GWP model’, where: “Prominent peaks were identified and the bond vibration interpretation is shown in Table 7 and the vibration indicated by Workman and Weyer<sup>38</sup> at the wavenumbers in bold were not found or not related to biomass.” now reads: “Prominent peaks were identified, and the bond vibration interpretation is shown in Table 7, which was indicated by Workman and Weyer<sup>38</sup>.” Equation 8: GWP for CO<inf>2</inf>, or CH<inf>4</inf>, or N<inf>2</inf>O Emissions = (1×CO<inf>2</inf> Emission) or (29.8×CH<inf>4</inf> Emission) or (273×N<inf>2</inf>O Emission) = (1×112 HHV) for CO<inf>2</inf> Emission or (29.8×30 HHV) for CH<inf>4</inf> Emission or (273×4 HHV) for N<inf>2</inf>O Emission = 112.0×HHV for CO<inf>2</inf> Emission or 894.0×HHV for CH<inf>4</inf> Emission or 1092.0×HHV for N<inf>2</inf>O Emission and GWP total = 2098.0 (HHV, TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) = 0.000002098 kJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 0.000002098 Jg<sup>-1</sup> now reads: GWP for CO<inf>2</inf>, or CH<inf>4</inf>, or N<inf>2</inf>O Emissions = (1×CO<inf>2</inf> Emission) or (27.2×CH<inf>4</inf> Emission) or (273×N<inf>2</inf>O Emission) = (1×112 HHV) for CO<inf>2</inf> Emission or (27.2×30 HHV) for CH<inf>4</inf> Emission or (273×4 HHV) for N<inf>2</inf>O Emission = 112.0×HHV for CO<inf>2</inf> Emission or 816.0×HHV for CH<inf>4</inf> Emission or 1092.0×HHV for N<inf>2</inf>O Emission and GWP total (kg CO<inf>2</inf>e) = 2020.0 (HHV, TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) = 0.000002020 kJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 0.000002020 J g<sup>-1</sup> Moreover, Tables 1 and 3 have been corrected. Incorrect Table 1: Remarks IPCC guideline Calculation of CO<inf>2</inf> emission Higher Heating Value = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor = 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>, we can follow these steps: Convert HHV to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: Since 1 TJ = 10<sup>12</sup> J, we need to convert the HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1.7932×10<sup>-3</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CO<inf>2</inf> emission (kg) = Mass of fuel (kg) × CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) CO<inf>2</inf> emission (kg) = 1 kg × 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 0.017932 TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> Therefore, the CO<inf>2</inf> emission from stationary fuel combustion with an HHV of 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> and using the default CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor of 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> would be approximately 2.0083×10<sup>-3</sup> kg of CO<inf>2</inf> per kg of fuel. CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor: 112 kg dry matter TJ<sup>-1</sup> (typical for wood combustion) Calculation of CH<inf>4</inf> emission Hight Heating Value = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor = 30 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> Convert HHV unit to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> 1 TJ= 10<sup>12</sup> J HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1,7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = 1 kg × 30 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 1,7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = 5.3796×10<sup>-4</sup> kg of CH<inf>4</inf> per kg of fuel CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor: 30 kg dry matter TJ<sup>-1</sup> Calculation of N<inf>2</inf>O emission Hight Heating Value = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor = 4 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> Convert HHV unit to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> 1 TJ = 10<sup>12</sup> J HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1.7932 ×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = 1 kg × 4 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 1.7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = 7.1728×10<sup>-5</sup> kg of N<inf>2</inf>O per kg of fuel N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor 4 kg dry matter /TJ The concept of global warming potential (GWP) was introduced in IPCC –AR1 (Shine et al. 1990) to compare the greenhouse effects of different greenhouse gases relative to a reference gas, normally taken as carbon dioxide, under this definition, CO<inf>2</inf> would have a GWP value of 1. Total GWP = (GWP of CO<inf>2</inf>×CO<inf>2</inf> emissions)+(GWP of CH<inf>4</inf>×CH<inf>4</inf> emissions)+(GWP of N<inf>2</inf>O×N<inf>2</inf>O emissions) Total GWP =1×2.0083×10<sup>-3</sup>+29.8× 5.379 ×10<sup>-4</sup>+273×7.1728×10<sup>-5</sup> Total GWP=0.0376 kg CO<inf>2</inf>e This calculation is by 100 years based GWP of emission gases followed AR6 <sup>7</sup> Correct Table 1: Remarks IPCC guideline Calculation of CO<inf>2</inf> emission Higher Heating Value = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor = 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>, we can follow these steps: Convert HHV to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: Since 1 TJ = 10<sup>12</sup> J, we need to convert the HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1.7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CO<inf>2</inf> emission (kg) = Mass of fuel (kg) × CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) CO<inf>2</inf> emission (kg) = 1 kg × 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 1.7932 × 10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> Therefore, the CO<inf>2</inf> emission from stationary fuel combustion with an HHV of 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> and using the default CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor of 112 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> would be approximately 2.0083 × 10<sup>-3</sup> kg of CO<inf>2</inf> per kg of fuel. CO<inf>2</inf> emission factor: 112 kg dry matter TJ<sup>-1</sup> (typical for wood combustion) Calculation of CH<inf>4</inf> emission Higher Heating Value = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor = 30 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> Convert HHV unit to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> 1 TJ= 10<sup>12</sup> J HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1,7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = 1 kg × 30 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 1,7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> CH<inf>4</inf> emission (kg) = 5.3796×10<sup>-4</sup> kg of CH<inf>4</inf> per kg of fuel CH<inf>4</inf> emission factor: 30 kg dry matter TJ<sup>-1</sup> Calculation of N<inf>2</inf>O emission Higher Heating Value = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor = 4 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> Convert HHV unit to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> 1 TJ = 10<sup>12</sup> J HHV from J kg<sup>-1</sup> to TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>: HHV in TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> = 17932000 J kg<sup>-1</sup> / 10<sup>12</sup> = 1.7932 × 10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = Mass of Fuel (kg) × N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor (kg TJ<sup>-1</sup>) × HHV (TJ kg<sup>-1</sup>) N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = 1 kg × 4 kg TJ<sup>-1</sup> × 1.7932×10<sup>-5</sup> TJ kg<sup>-1</sup> N<inf>2</inf>O emission (kg) = 7.1728×10<sup>-5</sup> kg of N<inf>2</inf>O per kg of fuel N<inf>2</inf>O emission factor 4 kg dry matter /TJ<sup>-1</sup> The concept of global warming potential (GWP) was introduced in IPCC –AR1 (Shine et al. 1990) to compare the greenhouse effects of different greenhouse gases relative to a reference gas, normally taken as carbon dioxide, under this definition, CO<inf>2</inf> would have a GWP value of 1. Total GWP = (GWP of CO<inf>2</inf>×CO<inf>2</inf> emissions) + (GWP of CH<inf>4</inf>×CH<inf>4</inf> emissions) + (GWP of N<inf>2</inf>O×N<inf>2</inf>O emissions) Total GWP = 1×2.0083×10<sup>-3</sup>+ 27.2× 5.3796 × 10<sup>-4</sup>+ 273×7.1728×10<sup>-5</sup> Total GWP= 0.03622 kg CO<inf>2</inf>e This calculation is by 100 years based GWP of emission gases followed AR6 <sup>7</sup> Incorrect Table 3: Calibration set Prediction set Parameter Method NT NC Max Min Mean SD NP Max Min Mean SD GWP IPCC Guidelines 197 147 0.03905 0.03080 0.03564 0.00180 50 0.038943 0.033002 0.03577 0.00165 HHV (J g<sup>-1</sup>) Bomb Calorimeter 197 147 18616 16405 16976 910 50 17950 15268 17051 787 Correct Table 3: Parameter Method NT Calibration Set Prediction Set NC Max Min Mean SD NP Max Min Mean SD GWP (kg CO<inf>2</inf>e) IPCC Guidelines 197 147 0.03905 0.03080 0.03564 0.00180 50 0.038943 0.033002 0.03577 0.00165 HHV (J g<sup>-1</sup>) Bomb Calorimeter 197 147 18616 16405 15268 910 50 17950 16976 17051 787 Finally, the legends of Tables 4 and 7 have been updated: “Table 4: Prediction of GWP of biomass of fast-growing tree and agriculture residue by PLSR. N: Number of samples in calibration set, R<sup>2</sup><inf>c</inf>: coefficient of determination of calibration set, n: number of samples in prediction set, R<sup>2</sup><inf>p</inf>: coefficient of determination of prediction set, RPD: ratio of prediction to deviation, CM: correlation method, VM: variance method, COVM: co-variance method, VIP: variable. Significant values are in [bold].” now reads: “Table 4. Prediction of GWP of biomass of fast-growing tree and agriculture residue by PLSR. N: Number of samples in calibration set, R<sup>2</sup><inf>c</inf>: coefficient of determination of calibration set, n: number of samples in prediction set, R<sup>2</sup><inf>p</inf>: coefficient of determination of prediction set, RPD: ratio of prediction to deviation, CM: correlation method, VM: variance method, COVM: co-variance method, VIP: variable important projection, FstDev: 1<sup>st</sup> derivative, SecDev: 2<sup>nd</sup> derivative. Significant values are in [bold].” “Table 7. The function groups corresponding to the wavenumber shown in regression coefficient plot and x-loading plot of models for GWP and HHV. *1ν, fundamental stretching vibration; 2ν, 1st overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 3ν, 2nd overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 5ν, 4th overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 1δ, fundamental bending (deformation) vibration; 3δ, 2nd overtone of fundamental bending (deformation) vibration; 1, symmetric stretching vibration; 2, bending vibration; 3, asymmetric stretching vibration; and + is combination. now reads: “Table 7. The function groups corresponding to the wavenumber shown in regression coefficient plot and x-loading plot of models for GWP and HHV. 1ν, fundamental stretching vibration; 2ν, 1st overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 3ν, 2nd overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 5ν, 4<sup>th</sup> overtone of fundamental stretching vibration; 1δ, fundamental bending (deformation) vibration; 3δ, 2nd overtone of fundamental bending (deformation) vibration; and + is combination.” The original version of this Article has been corrected.
dc.identifier.citationScientific Reports, 16(1), 2026
dc.identifier.doi10.1038/s41598-026-57969-2
dc.identifier.issn20452322
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-105042363236
dc.identifier.urihttps://dspace.kmitl.ac.th/handle/123456789/18349
dc.sourceScientific Reports
dc.titleAuthor Correction: Predicting biomass global warming potential with FT-NIR spectroscopy (Scientific Reports, (2025), 15, 1, (33725), 10.1038/s41598-025-10584-z)
dc.typeErratum

Files

Collections

Research