Reply to: Comment on: polarity effects and apparent ion recombination in microionization chambers [Med. Phys. 43(5) 2141‐2152 (2016)]. Issue 3 (10th February 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Miller, Jessica R.; Hooten, Brian D.; Micka, John A.; DeWerd, Larry A.
• Is Part Of: Medical physics. Volume 44:Issue 3(2017)
• Page Start: 1206
• Page End: 1207
• Publication Date: 2017-02-10
• Subjects: Medical physics -- Periodicals; Medical physics; Geneeskunde; Natuurkunde; Toepassingen; Biophysics; Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/mp.12084
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0094-2405

Abstract

Abstract : We would like to thank Dr. Brivio et al. [ Med. Phys .] for their comment on our recent paper. Miller et al. [ Med. Phys . 43 (2016) 2141‐2152] determined the primary cause of voltage‐dependent polarity effects in microchambers to be a potential difference between the guard and collecting electrodes. In their comment, Brivio et al., offer an explanation for the cause of such potential differences. Brivio et al. attribute the potential difference to the disparity in the work functions between guard and collecting electrodes composed of different materials. However, all of the microchambers investigated in Miller et al. contained a guard and collecting electrode which were composed of the same material. Therefore, the explanation offered by Brivio et al. that "the electric potential perturbation arises from the work function difference of the disparate materials electrodes" does not explain the polarity effects exhibited by the microchambers investigated in Miller et al., all of which contain electrodes composed of the same materials.