Export citation and abstract BibTeX RIS
There is an error in the calculation of our estimation (Czechowski & Mann 2010) of the nanodust flux at 1 AU due to the fact that the assumed nanodust production rate is too high by more than 2 orders of magnitude. We also omitted one contribution (the charge uncertainty) to the uncertainty limits for the nanodust flux observed by STEREO (Meyer-Vernet et al. 2009). As a result, our flux estimation is not within the STEREO range but below (although close to) the lower limit of the STEREO measurements for the cumulative mass >10−20 kg flux. Except for the estimation of the flux, the results of our paper do not depend on the absolute value of the production rate and consequently are not affected by the error.
In the third paragraph of Section 7.2 of the published article, after the second sentence, one should add the following:
With the charge uncertainty taken into account, the measured flux becomes 0.0006–2.5 m−2 s−1.
The last three sentences of Section 7.2 should be modified to:
The result for the flux of the nanodust in the 1–5 nm size range is ∼0.9 m−2 s−1 times fescfobs. Taking fescfobs = 0.15 gives then ∼0.13 m−2 s−1. This is equivalent to about 4 × 10−4 m−2 s−1 for the flux of >10 nm (>10−20 kg) grains, assuming m−5/6 behavior. This result is below the lower limit following from the STEREO data.
In Section 8, the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph should be replaced by:
Our model permits only a crude estimation of the nanodust flux at 1 AU. The result is equivalent to about 4 × 10−4 m−2 s−1 for >10 nm grains, which is below the flux measured by STEREO (0.0006–2.5 m−2 s−1 cumulative flux of the dust with mass >10−20 kg averaged over all observing time; Meyer-Vernet et al. 2009a). This suggests that the nanodust production rate assumed in the model is too low. Except for the flux estimation, our results do not depend on the absolute values of the production rates and are not affected by this discrepancy.