Correction: Sałasińska et al. Burning Behaviour of Rigid Polyurethane Foams with Histidine and Modified Graphene Oxide. Materials 2021, 14, 1184.

In the original article [...].

In the original article [1], there was a mistake in Table 8 as published. The values from Table 7 have been inserted twice. The corrected Table 8 Smoke emission of unmodified PU and polyurethane foams with APP or HGOA system appears below.

Table 8

Smoke emission of unmodified PU and polyurethane foams with APP or HGOA system.

Samples	TSR, m2/m2	SEA, m2/kg	Dsmax	VOF4
PU/10APP	586 (72)	622 (60 a)	142 (10)	308 (15)
PU/20APP	685 (134)	739 (16)	158 (29)	369 (82)
PU/30APP	706 (118)	757 (52)	180 (7)	431 (4)
PU/10HGOA	388 (18)	466 (12)	108 (6)	233 (5)
PU/20HGOA	298 (13)	359 (79)	127 (18)	226 (2)
PU/30HGOA	295 (39)	381 (27)	176 (24)	222 (6)

a The values in parentheses are the standard deviations.

There was an error in the Section 3.5 of the original article. The wrong name of the sample was used (PU/20HGOA).

A correction has been made to Results, Fire Behavior, Section 3.5:

Since the PU foams are characterized by cellular structure and low thermal inertia [39,40], the time to ignition (TT) of all samples was 6 s or less. Reduced thermal inertia of foams with lower density may lead to decreased TTI values [38], as in the case of PU/10HGOA; however, no trend was observed. PHRR were similar within APP and HGOA series independently of FR amount; nevertheless, insignificantly lower values were obtained for PU with HGOA. The differences between the pHRR for PU with 10%, 20%, and 30% of APP and HGOA were 21%, 24%, and 21%, respectively. A similar trend was observed for MARHE, and the lowest results were recorded for samples with the lowest amount of additives.

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