Corrigendum to “Quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) tool for modelling pathogen infection risk to wastewater treatment plant workers” [Water Research volume 260 (2024) 121858] (Water Research (2024) 260, (S0043135424007590), (10.1016/j.watres.2024.121858))

The authors regret to report that some of the text in the Discussion inaccurately described the modelling case study results, which appear correctly in the figure and in the supplemental materials Table S3. Table S3 was also missing some of the results associated with these statements. Details on the errors and the corrected statements are given below and a full version of Table S3 with complete results. In, “For case (1) individual pathogens, G. duodenalis had the highest median gastrointestinal infection risk (5.4 × 10^-2) and rotavirus had the lowest (5.2 × 10^-4), above a 1 × 10^-4 risk, a common comparison point used in QMRAs but originating from drinking water contexts for annual risks (Table S4),” “Table S4” should be replaced with “Table S3.” “L. pneumophila had the highest respiratory infection risk (5.8 × 10^-2) (Table S4)” should read “Adenovirus had the highest median respiratory infection risk (6.6 × 10^-3) (Table S3).” These values are available in a more comprehensive version of Table S3 at the end of this document. “G. duodenalis had the highest risk for both peak and non-peak hours for all pathogens considered in the ingestion risk scenario, and rotavirus had the lowest for peak and E. coli had the lowest for non-peak hours” should read “G. duodenalis had the highest median ingestion risk for peak hours, and C. hominis had the highest median ingestion risk for non-peak hours. Rotavirus had the lowest for peak and E. coli had the lowest for non-peak hours.” “The infection risk levels increased by 5-fold for all pathogens from non-peak to peak timing for the modeled scenarios, emphasizing that shift timing plays an important role in risk outcomes.” should read “The infection risk levels increased by up to 6 orders of magnitude for some pathogens, such as E. coli, from non-peak to peak timing for the modeled scenarios, emphasizing that shift timing plays an important role in risk outcomes.” Table S3. Summary statistics from simulation runs. (Now with more comprehensive results related to peak and non-peak inhalation risk estimates). [Table presented] Delignette-Muller and Dutang 2015 reference is for the sentence prior regarding the use of the fitdistrplus package. In Table 3, SARS-CoV-2 appears in the list of “pathogen of interest,” but this was not explored in the published work. For clarity, “…(4) respiratory infection risks for masks, N95 respirators, and no PPE.” should read “…(4) L. pneumophila respiratory infection risks for masks, N95 respirators, and no PPE.” For clarity, “Case (4) investigated the usage of cloth masks, surgical masks, and N95 respirators and their impact on the risk of respiratory infection from inhalation.” Should read “Case (4) investigated the usage of cloth masks, surgical masks, and N95 respirators and their impact on the risk of respiratory infection from L. pneumophila inhalation.” Figure 1 has a small pen mark next to the boxplot for Norovirus in the original manuscript. The figure below excludes this mark.[Figure presented] The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. Corresponding author: Amanda M.