We made an error in the designation of the voltage offset used for the calculation of the shift of the surface potential. The method that we used with the V_ref having a minimum in δI_ds/δV_ref calculates the threshold voltage and not flat band potential. As both offsets are equivalent to follow the changes in Ψ₀, so there is no significant change in the interpretation of the data. The labels and legend for Figure 2 in the original article should be corrected as shown here. Figure 2. (a)–(c) are the transfer I_ds vs V_ref characteristics at eight different electrolyte pH values from 3 to 10 in steps of 1 represented with the green color scale shown in (b) for devices 1–3, respectively. (d)–(f) are the evaluated threshold voltage potentials of the wires at different pHs for devices 1–3, respectively. This article has not yet been cited by other publications. Figure 2. (a)–(c) are the transfer I_ds vs V_ref characteristics at eight different electrolyte pH values from 3 to 10 in steps of 1 represented with the green color scale shown in (b) for devices 1–3, respectively. (d)–(f) are the evaluated threshold voltage potentials of the wires at different pHs for devices 1–3, respectively.

中文翻译：

---

对“高纵横比的鳍式离子敏感场效应晶体管：朝着更好的电化学生物传感方向妥协”的修正

我们在指定用于计算表面电势偏移的电压偏移时犯了一个错误。我们用所使用的方法V _REF具有δ的最小余_DS /δ V _REF计算的阈值电压，而不是平带电位。由于两个偏移量相当于遵循的变化Ψ ₀，所以在数据的解释没有显著变化。如此处所示，应更正原始文章中图2的标签和图例。图2.（a）–（c）是I _ds与V _ref的传递在8个不同的电解质pH值（从3到10，以1为步长）中，其特性分别用（b）所示的装置1-3的绿色刻度表示。（d）–（f）分别是设备1–3在不同pH下评估的导线阈值电势。本文尚未被其他出版物引用。图2.（a）–（c）是从3到10的八个不同电解质pH值（以1为步长）在8个不同电解质pH值下的传输I _ds与V _ref特性，用（b）中所示的绿色刻度表示设备1-3，分别。（d）–（f）分别是设备1–3在不同pH下评估的导线阈值电势。