Iron in X-COP: Tracing enrichment in cluster outskirts with high accuracy abundance profiles (Corrigendum)

We discovered a conversion error in deriving the expected iron yield YFe for Maoz &Graur (2017) values (see gold shaded area in our Fig. 19 in the original paper). Expected yields are evaluated through equation 12 and converted to solar units (see Eq. 11). We adopt the solar abundance measurements by Asplund et al. (2009); under this assumption, the solar iron abundance is Zm; = 0:00124; this is the solar iron abundance by mass fraction with respect to the gas mass, namely (Fe=gas). This is the value reported in our Sect. 5.1 and used throughout the paper. However, when we derived YFe using the yIa, kIa, yCC, and kCC estimates from Maoz &Graur (2017), we erroneously used Zm; = 0:00174, which is the solar iron abundance by mass fraction with respect to the hydrogen mass, (Fe=H), leading to a wrong expected range for the iron yield. The correct estimate for YFe is YFe; = 3:65+-1 1:30 30Z. In the meantime, Freundlich &Maoz (2021) published updated values for Type-Ia supernova (SNIa) rates. Their new estimates provide kIa = 3:1+1:1-1:0 × 10-3M-1, which leads to YFe; = 2:34+0:63-0:56Z. By chance, the new updated value is not very different from the wrong value reported in Ghizzardi et al. (2021), leaving our discussion and main conclusions unchanged. The last paragraph in Sect. 5.2 should be replaced with: "Recently, it has been shown (see Maoz &Graur 2017 and Friedmann &Maoz 2018) that type Ia SN explosions in galaxy (Figure Presented) clusters are more frequent than in the field. If, following Maoz &Graur (2017), we assume a SNIa rate per unit mass of kIa = (5:4 ± 2:3) × 10-3M-1, we derive YFe; = 3:65+-1 1:3 3 Z. More recently, Freundlich &Maoz (2021) published updated values for SNIa rates in clusters, kIa = 3:1+1:1-1:0 ×10-3 M-1, which lead to YFe; = 2:34+0:63-0:56Z (gold shaded region in Fig. 19). This revised SN rate brings the expected effective yield closer, but it is still well below the measured ones." Figure 19 should be replaced with the one reported here.