  In a 2023 Nature Communication, Dong claims that a disjoining chemical
potential should be used instead of "Hill's nanothermodynamics" because Hill's
subdivision potential "remains elusive to relate...to any experimental
observables." Here, I remind readers of the 2000 Letter to Nature where Hill's
ideas were adapted to provide improved agreement with the non-classical
critical scaling measured in ferromagnetic materials, and where the term
"nanothermodynamics" first appeared. I also suggest how adding
nanothermodynamics can improve Dong's results for measurements on real systems.
Because Dong's claim comes from his failure to recognize the relevance of
Hill's work in the original Letter, and in dozens of other publications, I
propose how the term nanothermodynamics might be clarified to avoid future
confusion.
