Corrigendum to “Corrosion behaviour of 316L stainless steel under stress in artificial seawater droplet exposure at elevated temperature and humidity” [Corros. Sci. 254 (2025) 113039] (Corrosion Science (2025) 254, (S0010938X2500366X), (10.1016/j.corsci.2025.113039))

The authors regret: In Fig. 3, after sensitisation at 550◦C for 150 h, carbide precipitation was not observed at the grain boundaries. However, visible topographical changes at the grain boundaries appeared as white ridges, which were revealed after etching the microstructure using the FIB XeF2 method. Additionally, impurities are depicted as black spots in Fig. 3(b). Despite the material being columnar grains, which could influence the corrosion resistance of 316 L stainless steel, are not evident. EBSD scans confirmed no columnar or preferential grain orientation related to the rolling direction, as shown in Fig. 4(a) and (b). However, the KAM maps in Fig. 4(c) and (d) demonstrate a clear distinction between samples stressed perpendicular to the rolling direction, where the proportion of mid- and high-angle grain boundaries (HAGBs) is greater compared to those stressed parallel to the rolling direction. This observation is further in Fig. 4(f), which is twice the amount shown in Fig. 4(e). Additionally, grain size analysis from EBSD scans show no significant variation across different surfaces for both non-sensitised and sensitised samples, as shown in Fig. 5. While the literature lacks a clear consensus on the impact of grain size on the corrosion resistance of 316 L stainless steel [41], the findings of Maric et al. suggest that mid- and high-angle grain boundaries influence corrosion penetration depth, a result consistentwith this study [44]. In Fig. 3, after sensitisation at 550◦C for 150 h, carbide precipitation was not observed at the grain boundaries. However, visible topographical changes at the grain boundaries appeared as white ridges, which were revealed after etching the microstructure using the FIB XeF2 method. Additionally, impurities are depicted as black spots in Fig. 3(b). Despite the material being columnar grains, which could influence the corrosion resistance of 316 L stainless steel, are not evident. The comprehensive work of Sidhom et al. further validates our choice of aging conditions. Their study demonstrated that 316 L stainless steel exhibits sensitization over a wide thermal exposure window—from 800◦C for 40 h to 500◦C for 40,000 h [46]. Our selected condition of 550◦C for 150 h falls at the lower end of this sensitization range. Microstructural analysis in our study confirmed the onset of intergranular attack at this exposure, affirming the relevance of Sidhom et al.’s thermal sensitivity mapping for predicting sensitization behaviour. The similarity in pit morphologies and evidence of preferential grain boundary attack further strengthens this connection. Corrected Text: In Figure 3, after sensitization at 550°C for 150 h, carbide precipitation was not observed at the grain boundaries. However, visible topographical changes at the grain boundaries appeared as white ridges, which were revealed after etching the microstructure using the FIB XeF2 method. Additionally, impurities are depicted as black spots in Figure 3 (b). Despite the material consisting of columnar grains, which could influence the corrosion resistance of 316 L stainless steel, these are not evident. EBSD scans confirmed no columnar or preferential grain orientation related to the rolling direction, as shown in Figure 4 (a) and (b). However, the KAM maps in Figure 4 (c) and (d) demonstrate a clear distinction between samples stressed perpendicular to the rolling direction, where the proportion of mid- and high-angle grain boundaries (HAGBs) is greater compared to those stressed parallel to the rolling direction. This observation is further confirmed by the total amount of mid- and high-angle grain boundaries in Figure 4 (f), which is twice the amount shown in Figure 4 (e). Additionally, grain size analysis from EBSD scans shows no significant variation across different surfaces for both non-sensitized and sensitized samples, as shown in Figure 5. While the literature lacks a clear consensus on the impact of grain size on the corrosion resistance of 316 L stainless steel [41], the findings of Maric et al. [44] suggest that mid- and high-angle grain boundaries influence corrosion penetration depth, a result consistent with this study. The comprehensive work of Sidhom et al. [46] further validates our choice of aging conditions. Their study demonstrated that 316 L stainless steel exhibits sensitization over a wide thermal exposure window—from 800°C for 40 h to 500°C for 40,000 h. Our selected condition of 550°C for 150 h falls at the lower end of this sensitization range. Microstructural analysis in our study confirmed the onset of intergranular attack at this exposure, affirming the relevance of Sidhom et al.’s thermal sensitivity mapping for predicting sensitization behaviour. The similarity in pit morphologies and evidence of preferential grain boundary attack further strengthens this connection. The authors sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused by the issue. We appreciate your understanding and are committed to addressing any concerns promptly.