Miller Jessica R, Hooten Brian D, Micka John A, DeWerd Larry A
Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 53792, USA.
Standard Imaging, Middleton, WI, 53562, USA.
Med Phys. 2017 Mar;44(3):1206-1207. doi: 10.1002/mp.12084. Epub 2017 Feb 10.
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.
我们要感谢布里维奥博士等人[《医学物理》]对我们近期论文的评论。米勒等人[《医学物理》43 (2016) 2141 - 2152]确定微腔中电压依赖性极性效应的主要原因是保护电极和收集电极之间的电位差。在他们的评论中，布里维奥等人对这种电位差的成因给出了解释。布里维奥等人将电位差归因于由不同材料组成的保护电极和收集电极之间功函数的差异。然而，米勒等人研究的所有微腔都包含由相同材料组成的保护电极和收集电极。因此，布里维奥等人提出的“电势扰动源于不同材料电极的功函数差异”这一解释，并不能解释米勒等人研究的微腔所表现出的极性效应，因为这些微腔中的电极均由相同材料组成。
