Corrigendum to “Simultaneous iron and nickel isotopic analyses of presolar silicon carbide grains” [Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 221 (2018) 87–108] (Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta (2018) 221 (87–108), (S0016703717303162), (10.1016/j.gca.2017.05.031))

Abstract

The authors regret that due to a normalization error, wrong [Formula presented]⁶⁴Ni values were reported throughout the manuscript. This affects Tables 1–3 [Formula presented] We add corrected tables and figures below. While this error does not change the conclusions of the original paper, we would like to briefly mention the changes for Sections 5.1, 5.2, and 5.5 that result from this error. Note that Section 5.6 and Fig. 15 of the original manuscript were calculated with the correct normalization and thus do not suffer from the error. Section 5.1 discusses potential contamination of presolar SiC grains with solar iron and nickel. Fig. 7 shows the measurements along with mixing lines. The highest measured [Formula presented]⁶⁴Ni value is [Formula presented]‰ in grain N72. To calculate mixing lines, we assume the presolar grain component shown in the corrected Fig. 7 at [Formula presented]‰, which is in good agreement with the presented AGB star models as well as with the presolar grain measurement. Section 5.2 compares the presolar grain measurements with the AGB nucleosynthesis models. Comparing the corrected [Formula presented]⁶⁴Ni measurements with the Torino and FRUITY AGB star models yields better agreement than previously. Now all presolar SiC grain measurements of [Formula presented]⁶⁴Ni can be explained by the models (previously some grains showed a slight enhancement in ⁶⁴Ni). Section 5.5 tries to explain the composition of the measured X (SiC70) and “odd” Z (N94) grain by mixing of various supernovae layers using the model by Rauscher et al. (2002). The mixing calculations are shown in Tables 2 and 3. The corrected [Formula presented]⁶⁴Ni values agree better with the performed mixing calculations. Note that the conclusions of Section 5.5 are not influenced by the error since they are mainly based on the comparison of other isotope ratios. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience these errors may have caused.