In the manuscript we incorrectly considered the inflection point of the Lorentzian similarity profile to be at the HWHM (half width at half-maximum) of the profile. More precisely, in the similarity profile given by S = 1/1+(Δn/Δn0)2(1) (eq 4 in the main paper) where Δn0is the HWHM, the inflection point is not found at Δn = Δn0as claimed, but at Δn = Δn0/√3. The purpose of using the inflection point was to maximize the slope. At Δn = Δn0, the slope is -1/(2x0) = -0.5/Δn0. At Δn = Δn0, the true inflection point, the slope is -9/(8√3 Δn0) ≈ -0.65/Δn0. The slope at the true inflection point is about 1.3 times greater. For a given uncertainty on the measurement of S, the corresponding uncertainty on the refractive index variation decreases when the slope increases. This does not change any conclusion of the manuscript. The point we used is simply not the optimal point. The uncertainty can be further reduced by a factor of 1.3.
Bibliographical notePublisher Copyright:
© 2022 American Chemical Society. All rights reserved.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Electronic, Optical and Magnetic Materials
- Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics
- Electrical and Electronic Engineering