Corrigendum to article “A kinetics-based universal model for single bubble growth and departure in nucleate pool boiling” International Journal of Multiphase Flow 105 (2018): 15-31 (International Journal of Multiphase Flow (2018) 105 (15–31), (S0301932217308091), (10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2018.02.022))

Crucial corrections: 1 On p.19 right column, top – in a discussion on the correct bubble rise velocity, the incorrect one was applied. It currently reads:“In addition, observing that for departure u_d≥ dR/dt, we consider values used in previous analysis: Turton (1965) took its lower limit, u_d= dR/dt – equivalent to a hovering sphere at departure, while Saini et al. (1975) and Roll & Myers (1964) took its upper limit – the normal velocity of the bubble tip, u_d=2(dR/dt). Conversely, Zeng et al. (1993) used an intermediate value of u_d=√3(dR/dt) based on inviscid flow analysis of a hemi-sphere, as also taken here. For the added mass drag coefficient there seems to be more agreement and values around ½ are typical, as in Saini et al.,1975, with 11/16 used by Roll & Myers, 1964 and √3/4≈0.433 by Zeng et al. (1993). Taking C_Mr=1/2 and assuming R(t)=Ktⁿ leads to the reduced force balance, Eq. (2) - differing from Zeng et al. (1993) only by the value of the added mass coefficient and the retention of the density ratio term, ρ_v/ρ_l, as at the high pressures examined here vapour density isn't always negligible: [Figure presented] It should be: “In addition, observing that for departure u_d≥ dR/dt, we consider values used in previous analysis: Turton (1965) took its lower limit, u_d= dR/dt – equivalent to a hovering sphere at departure. Conversely, Zeng et al. (1993) used an intermediate value of u_d=√3(dR/dt) based on inviscid flow analysis of a hemi-sphere, whereas Saini et al. (1975) and Roll & Myers (1964) took its upper limit – the normal velocity of the bubble tip, u_d=2(dR/dt), as also used here. For the added mass drag coefficient there seems to be more agreement and values around ½ are typical, as in Saini et al.,1975, with 11/16 used by Roll & Myers, 1964 and √3/4≈0.433 by Zeng et al. (1993). Taking C_Mr=1/2 and assuming R(t)=Ktⁿ leads to the reduced force balance, Eq. (2) - differing from Zeng et al. (1993) only by the value of the coefficients and the retention of the density ratio term, ρ_v/ρ_l, as at the high pressures examined here vapour density isn't always negligible: [Figure presented] 1 This error carries over to Eq. 22 & 23 (accidentally are already missing the original value), which are currently: [Figure presented] But should be: [Figure presented] And currently [Figure presented] Should be: [Figure presented] Typos: 1 Three other typos have been found: a) On page 17, left column[Formula presented] Should be g^−1/2 b) On page 23, right column [Formula presented] Should be g^−1/3 c) On p. 24 left column the present form is disrupted: [Formula presented] Should be 1/p^0.81The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.