The authors would like to make the following corrections to the published paper []:
Replacing the following sentences in “3.3. Comparison between Experimental and Computational Data”:
(1) With 88.5% of the natural gas being methane from the gas chromatography (GC) data, the injected methane was 182.3 g/bhp-hr.
with
With 77.6% of the natural gas being methane from the gas chromatography (GC) data, the injected methane was 182.3 g/bhp-hr.
(2) At the nominal point (injection pressure: 500 psi, SOA: −120 degrees), CFD predicts that 7.7% of the injected methane escapes complete combustion, while experimental results show only 0.03% of the injected methane escaping as emissions.
with
At the nominal point (injection pressure: 500 psi, SOA: −120 degrees), the CFD predicts that 7.7% of the injected methane escapes complete combustion, while the experimental results show only 4% of the injected methane escaping as emissions.
The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. These corrections were approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.
Reference
- Banji, T.I.; Arney, G.; Patterson, M.; Olsen, D.B. Reduction of Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Integral Compressor Engines through Fuel Injection Control. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).