Corrigendum

International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology

ISSN: 0955-6222

Article publication date: 2 March 2015

Citation

(2015), "Corrigendum", International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, Vol. 27 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCST-03-2015-144

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited


Corrigendum

Article Type: Corrigendum From: International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, Volume 27, Issue 1

It has been brought to the attention of Emerald Group Publishing that the article “Thermal insulations of multilayer clothing systems measured by a bench scale test in low level heat exposures”, published in International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, Vol. 26 No. 5, contained some errors in the data presented in Figure 2(a) (p. 418).

Figure 2 Total thermal insulations of clothing samples under different levels of the external heat flux

The errors appear in the data of the total thermal insulations of N1 (the sample without air gap) in Figure 2(a). The values of the total thermal insulations of N1 were mistaken using wrong order of magnitudes. The values of the total thermal insulations of N1 are corrected by 17.1, 16.8, 14.0, 13.3 and 10.5 (×10−3 °C·m2 W−1), under 2, 3, 5, 7 and 10 kW m−2, respectively. Therefore Figure 2(a) should be presented as follows.

The text should also be revised accordingly.

On p. 417, in lines 1-3 of para 2 of Section 3 – Results and Discussion, the total thermal insulations of N1-N5 should be revised as: “As shown in Figure 2(a), with the increase of the radiation from 2 to 10 kW m−2, the total thermal insulations of N1-N5 are reducing from 17.1 to 10.5, 25.83 to 13.08, 21.84 to 13.21, 27.17 to 14.44, and 27.64 to 13.08 (×10−3 °C·m2 W−1), respectively.”

On p. 419, in lines 1-2 of Section 3.2 – Thermal insulation of the closing system with and without air gap, the comparison between N1 and N2-N5 should be then revised as: “From Figure 2(a), it can also be seen that the total thermal insulation of the sample N1 without an air gap is less than those of other four samples.”

The authors apologise to the readers for any inconvenience caused. The online version of the article has been corrected.