Correction to: Environmental Chemistry Letters https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-018-0713-z

In the original publication, panel b in Fig. 3 is a duplicate of panel c in that figure. The correct Fig. 3 is shown below.

Fig. 3
figure 3

a CO2 loading versus time graph for the 0.7 wt% aqueous O-carboxymethylchitosan, monoethanolamine, 1-amino, 2-methylpropanol and methyldiethanolamine at 10 kPa CO2 partial pressure, 40 °C temperature for 30 min. It showed that O-carboxymethylchitosan was better than 1-amino, 2-methylpropanol and methyldiethanolamine but less effective than monoethanolamine. b Absorption and regeneration graphs of 0.7 wt% aqueous O-carboxymethylchitosan, monoethanolamine, 1-amino, 2-methylpropanol and methyldiethanolamine at 10 kPa CO2 partial pressure, 40 °C temperatures for 30 min and regeneration at 98 °C. c Absorption regeneration cycle of 0.7 wt% O-carboxymethylchitosan revealing that O-carboxymethylchitosan has good cyclic use capacity