The authors would like to correct am istake presented in Ta ble 7. The values given were incorrect by afactor of 100. The various references to Ta ble 7int he Results and Discussion should also reflect these changes.This error does not affect the interpretation of the results or the conclusions. We would like to express our sincere apology for this oversighttot he readership of ChemCatChem. To explain the possible blockage of metallic sites by deposited carbon, we have adjusted the units to mol c mol surf. Rh-1 here in the corrigenda. Now Ta ble 7(written here as Ta ble 1) and the related discussion should read. The contents of carbon deposition on the spent catalysts studied reached 0.75 mol C mol metal À1 upwards. The amounts of carbon depositiono nthe surface metals were much higher,which indicates ahigh probability of blockage of metallic sites by deposited carbon, e.g. 2.7 mol c mol surf. Rh À1 for spent Rh C /CeO 2 and 8.3 mol c mol surf. Rh À1 for spent (Rh C + Co C)/CeO 2 .T he high coke depositionmeasured on these spent catalysts may be correlated to the observed deactivation of the Rh C / CeO 2 ,Co C /CeO 2 ,(Rh C + Co C)/CeO 2 ,and Rh C /CeO 2-(Rh C + Co C)/CeO 2 catalysts on stream. We believe that coke deposition is responsible for the catalyst deactivation. Notably, at a1 %m etal loading the supported Rh and Co particles had acomparable capability of carbon deposition in ESR at 300 8C(0.85 and 0.90 mol c mol metal À1). Table 1. Carbon deposition on CeO 2-supported catalysts derivedf rom the monometallic carbonyls after 5h of ESR at 300 8Ce valuated by TGA in air. [a] Metal(s) Co/Rh Amount of carbon formed [atomic ratio] [mg C g catalyst À1 ][ mg C g metal À1 ][ mol C mol surf. Rh À1 ] Rh 1.1 0.85 2.7 Co 1.9 0.90-Co [b] 1.2 2.0-Rh + Co 1:12 .2 0.95-3:13 .5 0.75 8.3 [a] 1% Rh or Co loading in the supportedm onometallic precatalyst, 1% Rh loading in the supported bicomponent precatalyst. [b] 0.3 %C ol oad-ing.