Corrigendum

This article refers to:

Antimicrobial polyesters containing Schiff-base metal complexes

The authors would like to correct the following mistakes in their paper, published in Journal of Coordination Chemistry, 62, 1091 (10.1080/00958970802416020):

Section 2.2.2, Anal. Calcd [(C₁₈H₁₈N₂O₄)Cu(II)]% values should be C, 55.45; H, 4.65; N, 7.18; Cu, 16.29 instead of C, 55.50; H, 4.66; N, 7.78; Cu, 17.73.

Section 2.2.2, Found [(C₁₈H₁₈N₂O₄)Cu(II)]% values should be C, 55.48; H, 4.62; N, 7.30; Cu, 16.40 instead of C, 55.48; H, 4.65; N, 7.80; Cu, 17.72.

Table 1, the elemental analyses of compounds PSB–Co(II), PSB–Ni(II), PSB–Cu(II) and PSB–Zn(II) should be corrected as in the replacement table below.

Table 1. Elemental analysis of chelated polyesters

		Elemental analysis
Abbreviations	Yield in (%)	Carbon	Hydrogen	Nitrogen	Metal
PSB–Mn(II)	75	58.66 (58.65)	4.92 (4.90)	5.70 (5.72)	11.18 (11.20)
PSB–Co(II)	75	58.18 (58.36)	4.88 (4.84)	5.65 (5.47)	11.89 (11.51)
PSB–Ni(II)	74	58.21 (58.37)	4.88 (4.75)	5.65 (5.70)	11.85 (11.51)
PSB–Cu(II)	73	57.65 (57.59)	4.83 (4.86)	5.60 (5.52)	12.70 (12.33)
PSB–Zn(II)	75	57.44 (57.65)	4.82 (4.70)	5.58 (5.43)	13.02 (12.60)
Note: Calculated, (found) values.

Table 2, CH (sym-asym) peak for compound PSB-Zn(II) should be 2930–2860(m) instead of 2932–2860.

Table 2. The IR spectral bands and their assignments of chelated polyesters

	Assignments
Compounds	ν(Ar–CH)	–CH (sym–asym)	ν(C=O)	ν(C=N)	ν(C=C)	ν(C–N)	ν(M–N)	ν(M–O)
PSB–Mn(II)	3050(m)	2930–2860(m)	1710(s)	1600(s)	1560(m)	1040(m)	625(s)	520(s)
PSB–Co(II)	3055(m)	2930–2865(m)	1710s)	1630(s)	1550(m)	1050(s)	640(m)	525(s)
PSB–Ni(II)	3055(m)	2930–2860(m)	1710(s)	1605(s)	1545(m)	1055(s)	630(s)	520(s)
PSB–Cu(II)	3052(b)	2930–2865(m)	1710(s)	1630(s)	1565(s)	1050(m)	645(s)	520(m)
PSB–Zn(II)	3055(m)	2930–2860(m)	1710(s)	1600(s)	1565(m)	1060(m)	635(m)	530(s)
Note: s, strong; b, broad; m, medium; w, week; sym, symmetric; asym, asymmetric.

Table 2, νC–N peak for compound PSB–Mn(II) should be 1040(m) instead of 1540(m).

Table 2, the first column should be νAr–CH, not νN–H, as shown below.

Table 3, the electronic spectrum assignment for PSB–Co(II) with electronic transition (cm⁻¹) of 9035 should be ⁴T₂(F) ← ⁴A₂ instead of ⁴T₂(F) ← ³A_2.

Table 3. Magnetic moments and electronic spectral data of chelated polyesters

		Electronic spectral data
Abbreviations	Magnetic moment in B.M.^a	Electronic transition (cm^−1)	Assignment	Geometry
		19,980	^4T1(G) ← ^6A1
PSB–Mn(II)	5.10	21,170	^4T2(G) ← ^6A1	Tetrahedral
		23,408	^4A1(G) ← ^6A1
PSB–Co(II)	3.46	9035	^4T2(F) ← ^4A2	Tetrahedral
		16,120	^4T1(P) ← ^4A2
PSB–Ni(II)	Diamagnetic	16,984	^1A2g ← ^1A1g	Square planar
		23,065	^1B1g ← ^1A1g
PSB–Cu(II)	1.82	17,675	^2A1g ← ^2B1g	Square planar
		25,236	Charge-transfer
PSB–Zn(II)	Diamagnetic			Tetrahedral
Note: ^aBohr magneton.

Table 3, the electronic spectrum assignment for PSB–Co(II) with electronic transition (cm⁻¹) of 16,120 should be ⁴T₁(P) ← ⁴A₂ instead of ⁴T₁(P) ← ³A_2.

Table 3, B.M. (note a) refers to Bohr Magneton not Bohr megneton, as shown below.

Section 3.3.3, The sentence:

The electronic spectra of the PSB-Co(II) complex showed bands at 16,120 and 9035 cm⁻¹, assigned to ⁴T₁(P) ← ³A₂ and ⁴T₂(F) ← ³A₂ transitions, respectively, of a tetrahedral cobalt [22].

Should be

The electronic spectra of the PSB-Co(II) complex showed two bands at 16,120 and 9035 cm⁻¹ which may be assigned due to ⁴T₁(P) ← ⁴A₂, and ⁴T₂(F) ← ⁴A₂ transitions respectively, suggesting a tetrahedral geometry around the cobalt ion [22].