Corrigendum to “Feasibility of hydrogen storage in depleted hydrocarbon chalk reservoirs: Assessment of biochemical and chemical effects” [Appl. Energy 323 (2022) 119575] (Applied Energy (2022) 323, (S0306261922008856), (10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119575))

The authors regret that in Fig. 7, the upper growth limit of the acetogens was incorrect. Below a revised figure:[Formula presented] This figure also has a different marker for the fields Dagmar, Skjold, Halfdan, Dan, Tyra, Valdemar, Roar (the previous one was black). This avoids confusing the fields with the markers in A, B, C. In addition, the figure text to Fig. 7 is citing the preprint but should cite the published article, i.e. Thaysen, E. M.; McMahon, S.; Strobel, G. J.; Butler, I. B.; Ngwenya, B. T.; Heinemann, N.; Wilkinson, M.; Hassanpouryouzband, A.; McDermott, C. I.; Edlmann, K., Estimating microbial growth and hydrogen consumption in hydrogen storage in porous media Renew Sustain Energ Rev 2021, 151 (111481), 1–15.We also noticed that the article was cited wrongly twice for ‘no effect of biogeochemical reactions on hydrogen storage’. We suppose the wrong citations are based on the current highlight ‘Biotic reactions may cause a maximum hydrogen loss of below 0.6% per year’ which we would therefore like to extend to ‘Biotic reactions cause a hydrogen loss of <0.6% per yr to 100% in less than 5 yrs’.