The authors regret that the representation of Fig. 3 is such that it could be misleading or confusing to the readers. For clarification, we state that the • x-axis is r (radius) and not r*.• sign convention associated with μ is such that positive and negative signs associated with the Gibbs-Thompson and electrostatic enthalpy terms in equation (9) and (10) are arbitrarily chosen here. It could well be the reverse (i.e there could be negative and positive signs associated with the Gibbs-Thompson and electrostatic enthalpy terms). This is so since there is no internal referencing in this problem. For instance whether or not this term would be positive or negative would depend upon the chemistry between the species that is interacting with the surfactant coated surface.However it is to be noted however that the entropic contribution will always bear a positive sign. This is substantially smaller than the enthalpy contribution to the surface chemical potential. Hence to estimate minima, it is reasonable to plot –μ with respect to r (radius) here. The corrected Figure 3 is given below: The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.