Corrigendum Corrigendum to “Synchrotron tomographic quantification of the influence of Zn concentration on dendritic growth in Mg-Zn alloys” [Acta Mater. 156 (2018) 287e296] A.B. Phillion a, * , Sansan Shuai b , Enyu Guo c , Jiang Wang b , Tao Jing d , Zhongming Ren b , H. Neumann-Heyme e , C. Beckermann f , P.D. Lee g, h, ** a Department of Materials Science and Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, L9S 4L7, Canada b School of Materials Science and Engineering, Shanghai University, Shanghai, 200444, China c Key Laboratory of Solidification Control and Digital Preparation Technology (Liaoning Province), School of Materials Science and Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian,116024, China d School of Materials Science and Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China e Institute of Fluid Dynamics, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, 01328, Germany f Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City, 52242, USA g Mechanical Engineering, UCL, London, WC1E 7JE, United Kingdom h Research Complex at Harwell, RAL, Didcot, OX11 0FA, UK In solidification science, the solid-liquid interfacial area density is a key metric that characterizes the overall semi-solid morphology in a general sense. This interfacial area density can be defined in two different ways. The first is the specific interface area S s , which is defined as the area of the solid-liquid interface A divided by the volume of the enclosed solid volume V s , i.e. S s ¼ A Vs . As noted by Neumann-Heyme, Eckert, and Beckermann [1], the inverse of the specific interface area can be considered a characteristic length scale of the microstruc- ture. An alternative measure is the interfacial area concentration S V , in which the solid-liquid interface A is divided by the sample volume V that includes both the solid and liquid phases, i.e. S V ¼ A V . The two measures of interfacial area density are related as S V ¼ g s S s where g s is the volume fraction of the solid phase. The authors regret that in their recent paper [2], the terms S S and S V were not clearly defined, which resulted in an incorrect use of the Cahn [3] and Rath [4] equation, (Equation (3) in Ref. [2]). to generate Figure 10 of the original manuscript. The revised figure is shown below as Fig. 1 . This figure compares the experimentally measured variation in S v with the prediction given by Eq (3) in Ref. [2]. assuming that m ¼ n and that K and m are fitting parameters. As can be seen, the model curves are able to match the experimental data. An important outcome is that now the exponent m has a positive value between 0 and 1, matching other studies in this field. In the original manuscript, the exponent m had a negative value. This new figure shows clearly the globular structure of the Mg- 25 wt.%Zn solid, having smaller S v , while that the hyper-branched structure seen at Mg-38 wt.%Zn and the dendritic structure with branched arms at Mg-50 wt.%Zn have a very similar morphological evolution, in a general sense. The error highlighted above did not only occur in Ref. [2], but also in one other of our manuscripts. Fig. 2 is a corrected version of Figure 8b of [5] where we have again assumed that the exponents m and n are equivalent. Again, a much better fit to the data is achieved. DOI of original article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2018.06.026. * Corresponding author. Department of Materials Science and Engineering, McMaster University,1280 Main St West, Hamilton, ON, Canada. ** Corresponding author. Mechanical Engineering, UCL, London, WC1E 7JE, United Kingdom E-mail addresses: andre.phillion@mcmaster.ca (A.B. Phillion), peter.lee@ucl.ac.uk (P.D. Lee). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Acta Materialia journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actamat https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2018.11.006 1359-6454/© 2018 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Acta Materialia 165 (2019) 751e752