Erratum for: A&A, 699, A314 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202553799

In the original publication, the spectroscopic and evolutionary Eddington parameters were derived using the spectroscopic ${\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{e}}^{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}}$ and evolutionary ${\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{e}}^{\mathrm{e}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{o}}$ masses, respectively. The values presented in Table A.1 were incorrect. All the values should be divided by a factor of two. This correction affects Fig. 12 (massloss rates log Ṁ vs. Γ_e), Fig. 19 (wind efficiency parameter η vs. effective temperature T_eff), Fig. 20 (ratio of the terminal wind velocity υ_∞ to the escape velocity υ_esc vs. T_eff), and Eq. (8) in the original paper. We present the correct ${\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{e}}^{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}}$ and ${\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{e}}^{\mathrm{e}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{o}}$ in Table 1 and the correct ${\upsilon }_{\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{c},(1-{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{e}})}$ in Table 2.

Following these corrections to the parameters, some errors in the plots had to be corrected. Figure 12 of the original publication is replaced by Fig. 1, where the values of log Γ_e for the sample have been shifted leftward by -0.3 dex. Figures 19 and 20 in the original are replaced by Figs. 2 and 3, respectively. The colorbar labels in the original plots are shifted by -0.3 dex.

Equation (8) in the original is replaced by the following equation: $${\upsilon }_{\mathrm{\infty }}/{\upsilon }_{\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{c}}=5.6(\pm 1.0)\log (T_{\mathrm{e}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{f}}/\mathrm{K})-22.3(\pm 4.5).$$(1)

This correction also eliminates the issue with the abnormally high ${\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{e}}^{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}}$ and ${\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{e}}^{\mathrm{e}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{o}}$ we obtained for our sample and the ${\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{e}}^{\mathrm{e}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{o}}>1$ we obtained for the hyper-giant Sk -68° 135, which was discussed in Sect. 4.3 of the original publication. It also brings our derived values more in line with the numerically predicted υ_∞/υ_esc from Krticka et al. (2024). These adjustments do not change the conclusions originally drawn from the study.

© The Authors 2026

All Tables

All Figures

	Fig. 1 Replacement of Fig. 12 of the original paper.
In the text

	Fig. 2 Replacement of Fig. 19 of the original paper.
In the text

	Fig. 3 Replacement of Fig. 20 of the original paper.
In the text