In the published article, there was a mistake in Table 3. Specifically, the "Exs" column, which lists our assessment of the infrared excess, was incorrectly labeled. The correct table is presented here, which includes 88 white dwarfs with only magnitude excess, 53 white dwarfs with only color excess, and 47 white dwarfs with both magnitude excess and color excess. The total number of white dwarfs with a candidate infrared excess is 188, as mentioned in the abstract/text of the published article. This correction does not affect the rest of the paper. We apologize for any possible inconvenience. (Table Presente).