We discovered a technical problem with one of our laboratory balances affecting the molal concentrations of the NaFSI solutions used for this study. We report the corrected data in Figure 1. The trend in conductivity vs molality now resembles that found for LiTFSI solutions (Figure 1a), with a maximum at ∼4 mol kg^–1 (4m). Since the original publication of this study, we recorded the phase diagram for the H₂O–NaFSI system and found that the room-temperature solubility of NaFSI is lower than that previously reported by us. It is in fact similar to that of LiTFSI (∼21m at 23 °C).(1) Hence, NaFSI solutions with concentrations > 21m are only metastable at room temperature. In light of the lower solubility and for easy comparison with 21m LiTFSI, the original water-in-salt electrolyte, we now include data for 21m NaFSI in Figure 1a–c. The narrow peak visible in the Raman spectrum of 21m NaFSI indicates that NaFSI solutions also have a high stability at this concentration (Figure 1b). The linear sweep voltammetry data shown in Figure 1c confirms that the stability of 21m NaFSI approaches that of 21m LiTFSI. Figure 1. Conductivity, structural characterization, and electrochemical stability of aqueous electrolytes based on NaFSI: (a) conductivity at 20 °C, (b) Raman spectra in the wavenumber region corresponding to the OH stretching modes of water, and (c) electrochemical stability on stainless steel evaluated using linear sweep voltammetry at a scan rate of 0.1 mV s^–1. Cyclic voltammograms of NaTi₂(PO₄)₃ and Na₃(VOPO₄)₂F based electrodes measured in 35m NaFSI at a scan rate of 0.05 mV s^–1 are also shown. The current densities for the active material measurements were scaled to fit to the electrolyte stability measurements. The thermodynamic potentials for the hydrogen and oxygen evolution reactions at pH = 7 are shown as vertical dashed lines labeled HER and OER, respectively. For comparison, data for aqueous LiTFSI solutions are also shown. We emphasize that the main conclusions of our paper, i.e., the much higher solubility of NaFSI (21m) vs NaTFSI (8m) and the extended electrochemical stability window of NaFSI of 2.6 V near the solubility limit are still valid. Figure 1 should appear as follows: This article references 1 other publications.

中文翻译：

---

对“用于钠离子电池的高压水电解质”的更正

我们发现一个实验室天平存在一个技术问题，该天平会影响用于本研究的NaFSI溶液的摩尔浓度。我们在图1中报告了校正后的数据。电导率与摩尔浓度的趋势现在类似于LiTFSI溶液（图1a）中发现的趋势，最大值在〜4 mol kg ^–1（4m）。自该研究最初发表以来，我们记录了H ₂的相图在O–NaFSI系统上，发现NaFSI在室温下的溶解度比我们先前报道的要低。它实际上与LiTFSI相似（在23°C时约为21m）。（1）因此，浓度> 21m的NaFSI溶液仅在室温下是亚稳态的。考虑到较低的溶解度并易于与原始盐包水电解质21m LiTFSI进​​行比较，我们现在在图1a–c中包括21m NaFSI的数据。在21m NaFSI的拉曼光谱中可见的窄峰表明NaFSI溶液在此浓度下也具有很高的稳定性（图1b）。图1c中显示的线性扫描伏安法数据证实21m NaFSI的稳定性接近21m LiTFSI的稳定性。图1.基于NaFSI的水性电解质的电导率，结构表征和电化学稳定性：（a）在20°C下的电导率，^–1。基于NaTi ₂（PO ₄）₃和Na ₃（VOPO ₄）₂ F的电极在35m NaFSI中以0.05 mV s ^–1的扫描速率测量的循环伏安图也显示。缩放活性材料测量的电流密度以适合电解质稳定性测量。在pH = 7时氢气和氧气逸出反应的热力学势分别显示为标为HER和OER的垂直虚线。为了进行比较，还显示了LiTFSI水溶液的数据。我们强调，本文的主要结论，即NaFSI（21m）比NaTFSI（8m）的溶解度高得多，以及NaFSI在溶解度极限附近的2.6 V扩展的电化学稳定性窗口仍然有效。图1应该如下所示：本文引用了其他1个出版物。