Correction: Recent Advances in Thermal Interface Materials (ES Mater. Manuf. (2020) 7 (4-24) DOI: 10.30919/esmm5f717)

Some errors were found and should be corrected such as some data errors and manual errors in the 2.1 Model to Predict Thermal Conductivity (λTIM) and Table 4. Thermal conductivity of common types of fillers for the paper entitled "Recent Advances in Thermal Interface Materials" in ES Materials & Manufacturing, 2020, 7, 4-24, (DOI: 10.30919/esmm5f717). [1] In previously published paper: Table 2 lists various models to predict λc. Prasher et al.[19,22] found that Bruggeman asymmetric model (BAM) matches the experimental data of various polymeric TIM. BAM is very successful in modeling λTIM. BAM matches the data by assuming α (Biot number) of 0.1. Assuming λm of 0.2 W/m K and particle diameter (d) of 10 μm (typical in commercial TIMs), α=0.1 gives Rb =5×106 K m2 W-1. Rb at the interface between the particle and the matrix could arise due to phonon acoustic mismatch or incomplete wetting of the interface by the polymer. Rb due to phonon acoustic mismatch is of the order of 10-8 K m2 W-1 at room temperatures, resulting in α of 0.0002 for the case with d of 10 μm and λm of 0.2 W/m K. Prasher et al. also showed that phonon acoustic mismatch at room temperature is negligible when compared to incomplete particle wetting; however, phonon acoustic mismatch Table 1. (Table presented).