Correction: Anders et al. First Principle Surface Analysis of YF₃ and Isostructural HoF₃. Materials 2022, 15, 6048

In the original publication [1], there was a mistake in Table 2 and Figure 2 as published. Within

Table 2. The YF₃ (PBE) and HoF₃ (PBE+U${}_{\mathrm{d}}$/3 eV/4f-in-core) surfaces with respective terminations (term.), slab thickness in layers of formula units without terminal F-deficit ($L_{\mathrm{MF}3}$), nominal surface net charge ($q_{\mathrm{surf}}$) in e, surface energies of relaxed ($E_{\mathrm{surf}}$) and unrelaxed slabs ($E_{\mathrm{surf}}^{\mathrm{unrel}.}$) in J m${}^{-2}$, as well as the relaxed surface metal coordination number (CN${}_{\mathrm{surf}}$). The lowest surface energies per ($hkl$) cut are highlighted in bold. For these, also the abundance obtained by the Wulff plot (%${}_{\mathrm{surf}}$) is given.

			${\mathit{L}}_{\mathbf{MF}3}$		CN${}_{\mathbf{surf}}$		${\mathit{E}}_{\mathbf{surf}}$ (${\mathit{E}}_{\mathbf{surf}}^{\mathbf{unrel}.}$)		%${}_{\mathbf{surf}}$
($\mathit{h}\mathit{k}\mathit{l}$)	term.	${\mathit{q}}_{\mathbf{surf}}$	YF3	HoF3	YF3	HoF3	YF3	HoF3	YF3	HoF3
(100)	1	0	20	24	5,9		1.61 (2.87)	0.93 (1.48)
	2	0	22	26	6,9		1.03 (2.02)	0.58 (0.96)	7%	25%
	3	+1	20	24	5,8		1.24 (1.61)	0.62 (0.68)
	4	+2	22	26	4,7		1.79 (2.14)	0.87 (0.90)
(010)	1	0	10	12	8,8		0.58 (0.84)	0.47 (0.49)	26%	34%
	2	+2	10	12	6,6		1.80 (2.05)	1.52 (1.52)
(001)	1	0	20	24	5,8,8,9		1.23 (2.45)	1.37 (2.25)
	2	0	22	26	6,7,8,9		0.58 (1.39)	0.67 (1.16)	10%	6%
	3	+2	22	26	4,5,8,9		1.27 (1.70)	1.23 (1.29)
(110)	1	0	20	24	6,8,8		1.01 (1.80)	0.99 (1.59)	5%	0%
	2	0	22	26	6,8,8		1.00 (2.41)	1.00 (2.18)
	3	+2	22	26	4,6,9	4,6,8	1.42 (1.73)	2.09 (1.36)
(101)	1	0	20	24	6,7,8,8		0.82 (1.48)	0.89 (1.33)
	2	0	20	24	6,6,8,8		0.82 (3.34)	0.88 (3.17)
	3	+1	20	24	6,7,8,8		0.76 (1.16)	0.69 (0.89)	20%	14%
	4	+1	22	26	5,6,7,9	5,6,8,8	1.07 (2.10)	1.03 (1.70)
	5	+2	20	24	4,5,8,8	5,6,8,8	0.98 (1.39)	0.99 (0.99)
(011)	1	0	10	12	7,7,9,9		0.78 (1.30)	0.81 (1.14)
	2	0	10	12	6,6,8,8		0.61 (1.32)	0.68 (1.15)	22%	13%
	3	+2	10	12	4,4,8,8		1.25 (1.68)	1.35 (1.38)
(111)	1	0	20	24	6,7,7,8	7,7,8,8	1.02 (3.46)	0.87 (3.29)
	2	+1	20	24	5,6,8,8		0.83 (1.30)	0.82 (1.04)	10%
	3	+1	22	26	6,6,7,9		1.05 (1.70)	0.75 (1.11)		7%
	4	+2	20	24	5,5,7,7		0.93 (1.22)	0.95 (1.13)

, the coordination numbers of the two stoichiometric terminations of surface (011) have been flipped [showing (011)-1 and (011)-2 with 6,6,8,8 and 7,7,9,9, respectively]. Figure 2 showed the surface of (011)-2 in the first row, third image with the same incorrect coordination numbers of 7,7,9,9 instead of 6,6,8,8. The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.