<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

# Erratum: “Dust and Gas in the Magellanic Clouds from the HERITAGE Herschel Key Project. I. Dust Properties and Insights into the Origin of the Submm Excess Emission”
(2014, ApJ, 797, 85)

Karl D. Gordon¹,², Julia Roman-Duval¹, Caroline Bot³, Margaret Meixner¹, Brian Babler⁴, Jean-Philippe Bernard⁵,⁶,
Alberto Bolatto⁷, Martha L. Boyer⁸,⁹, Geoffrey C. Clayton¹⁰, Charles Engelbracht¹¹,¹², Yasuo Fukui¹³, Maud Galametz¹⁴,
Frederic Galliano¹⁵, Sacha Hony¹⁵, Annie Hughes¹⁶, Remy Indebetouw¹⁷, Frank P. Israel¹⁸, Katie Jameson⁷, Akiko Kawamura¹⁹,
Vianney Lebouteiller¹⁵, Aigen Li²⁰, Suzanne C. Madden¹⁵, Mikako Matsuura²¹, Karl Misselt¹¹, Edward Montiel¹⁰,¹¹,
K. Okumura¹⁵, Toshikazu Onishi²², Pasquale Panuzzo¹⁵,²³, Deborah Paradis⁵,⁶, Monica Rubio²⁴, Karin Sandstrom¹¹,
Marc Sauvage¹⁵, Jonathan Seale¹,²⁵, Marta Sewiło²⁵, Kirill Tchernyshyov²⁵, and Ramin Skibba¹¹,²⁶

¹Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA

²Sterrenkundig Observatorium, Universiteit Gent, Gent, Belgium

³Observatoire astronomique de Strasbourg, Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, UMR 7550, 11 rue de l Université, F-67000 Strasbourg, France

⁴Department of Astronomy, 475 North Charter Street, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA

⁵CESR, Université de Toulouse, UPS, 9 Avenue du Colonel Roche, F-31028 Toulouse, Cedex 4, France

⁶Université de Toulouse, UPS-OMP, IRAP, 31028 Toulouse Cedex 4, France

⁷Department of Astronomy, Lab for Millimeter-wave Astronomy, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA

⁸Observational Cosmology Lab, Code 665, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA

⁹Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU), Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA

¹⁰Louisiana State University, Department of Physics & Astronomy, 233-A Nicholson Hall, Tower Dr., Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA

¹¹Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, 933 North Cherry Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA

¹²Raytheon Company, 1151 East Hermans Road, Tucson, AZ 85756, USA

¹³Department of Physics, Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8602, Japan

¹⁴European Southern Observatory, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2, D-85748 Garching-bei-Mnchen, Germany

¹⁵CEA, Laboratoire AIM, Irfu/SAP, Orme des Merisiers, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France

¹⁶Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie, Königstuhl 17, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany

¹⁷Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia, and National Radio Astronomy Observatory, 520 Edgemont Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA

¹⁸Sterrewacht Leiden, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9513, NL-2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands

¹⁹National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo, 181-8588, Japan

²⁰314 Physics Building, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA

²¹Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK

²²Department of Astrophysics, Graduate School of Science, Osaka Prefecture University, Sakai, Osaka 599-8531, Japan

²³CNRS, Observatoire de Paris—Lab. GEPI, Bat. 11, 5, place Jules Janssen, 92195 Meudon CEDEX, France

²⁴Departamento de Astronomía, Universidad de Chile, Casilla 36-D, Santiago, Chile

²⁵The Johns Hopkins University, Department of Physics and Astronomy, 366 Bloomberg Center, 3400 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA

²⁶Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, Department of Physics, University of California, 9500 Gilman Dr, La Jolla, San Diego, CA 92093, USA

Received 2017 February 10; published 2017 March 7

The values of $\kappa_{\text{eff,160}}$ given in the original paper are missing a factor of $\pi$. This is because the routine used to compute $B_{\lambda}(T)$ was the IDL Astronomer User's Library<fnref n="27" /> *planck.pro* and it returns $\pi B_{\lambda}(T)$. While this is explicitly documented in the *planck.pro* function, it was not realized by the first author until after the paper was published. This does not impact the results or conclusions of the paper as the values of $\kappa_{\text{eff,160}}$ used were determined based on fitting Milky Way observations using the same code that was used to fit the Magellanic Cloud observations. Thus, the correct values of $\kappa_{\text{eff,160}}$ are a factor of $\pi$ larger than the ones quoted in the paper. Using Equation (5) from the paper with the values of $\kappa_{\text{eff,160}}$ given in the corrected Table 2 will reproduce the dust surface density result from the paper. The detailed fit parameter maps used in the paper are available online.<fnref n="28" />

The correct values of $\kappa_{\text{eff,160}}$ are approximately a factor of two larger than the values calculated from full dust grain models and discussed in Section 5.3 of the paper. This difference may be due to the simple models in our paper, which did not include the full physical treatment (e.g., multiple grain sizes/compositions with different temperatures) or, less likely, some issues with the assumptions in the dust grain models. We are carrying out work to investigate such issues for the dust in the Magellanic Clouds (and Milky Way) using more complicated dust grain models and additional observations. This work will be discussed in future papers.

There was a typo in Equation (4) with a factor of $\pi$ missing from the denominator. This does not affect Equation (5) as it was derived correctly including this factor of $\pi$. The correct equation is

$$S_{\lambda} = \frac{\sum_{d}}{\frac{4}{3}\pi a^3 \rho} \pi a^2 Q_{\lambda} B_{\lambda}(T_d). \qquad (4)$$

Last, there was a typo in Equation (15). The correct equation is

$$S_{\text{band}} = \frac{\int S_{\nu} R_{E}(\nu) d\nu}{\int (\nu_{o}/\nu) R_{E}(\nu) d\nu}. \qquad (15)$$

<footnote n="27">²⁷https://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸http://www.stsci.edu/~kgordon/magclouds_results/</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 2**
MW Diffuse Fit Results</caption><thead><tr><th>Model</th><th>κ<sub>eff,160</sub><sup>a</sup><br>[cm<sup>2</sup> g<sup>-1</sup>]</th><th>Other Parameters</th><th>Expectation Values</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>SMBB</td><td>30.2 ± 1.3 ± 2.5</td><td>(T<sub>eff,d</sub>, β<sub>eff</sub>)</td><td>(17.2 ± 0.4 K, 1.96 ± 0.10)</td></tr><tr><td>BEMBB</td><td>36.4 ± 4.7 ± 2.5</td><td>(T<sub>eff,d</sub>, β<sub>eff,1</sub>, λ<sub>b</sub>, e<sub>500</sub>)</td><td>(16.8 ± 0.6 K, 2.27 ± 0.15, 294 ± 29 µm, 0.48 ± 0.11)</td></tr><tr><td>TTMBB</td><td>1620 ± 672 ± 2.5</td><td>(T<sub>eff,d1</sub>, T<sub>eff,d2</sub>, β<sub>eff</sub>, e<sub>500</sub>)</td><td>(15.0 ± 0.7 K, 6.0 ± 0.8 K, 2.9 ± 0.1, 0.91 ± 0.25)</td></tr><tr><td>TTMBB</td><td>30.2 ± 1.3 ± 2.5</td><td>adopted</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

**Note.**

<footnote>a The results are given as value ± fitting uncertainty ± systematic uncertainty.</footnote>