(Doc. ID 154663); published 0 MONTH 0000In [1,2] an error (by a factor of 1000) in the diffusion rate of monomer in a photopolymer material used by the authors of [3], is presented. In [3] no errors are identified in our analysis and our physical evidence is not addressed. It is implied that our model and our results are disproven by the results in the papers referenced in [3]. In fact these papers do not provide any such quantitative evidence. The observations made regarding the significance of the authors' contributions, in particular the validity of their model and the practical importance of their material are also discussed. © 2012 Optical Society of America OCIS codes: 090.0090, 050.2770, 050.7330, 160.5470, 090.2900.
REPLYIn our two part paper [1,2] we demonstrate that an error has been made by Toal et al. [3,4] in relation to their interpretation of their experimental results for their acrylamide/polyvinyl alcohol (AA/PVA) photopolymer material. We show that their value for the rate of monomer diffusion in their AA/PVA, 10 −7 cm 2 ∕s, is incorrect by a factor of 1000. Our estimated value, of 10 −10 cm 2 ∕s, agrees with typical values found using the nonlocal photo-polymerisation driven diffusion model, (NPDD). In the second part of our paper we place their diffusion value within the context of other materials. These results are neglected in [3]. Despite the large size and the serious consequences of the error identified in [1,2], the authors of [3] have chosen not to report on their attempts to repeat our analysis so as to quantitatively disprove our results. Instead in relation to our results, Toal et al. [3] first state that our values encompass theirs. Then they imply that the differences may arise due to differences in the material composition. Finally they state that our material composition is in fact identical to theirs and that we have given the false impression that we developed this material. Most of the actual text in [3] however involves a long listing of their papers, all of which contain interpretations of the material behavior that our paper [1,2] Figure 7). Such disagreements, of between 500% and 3900%, (following >15 years of model development), do not indicate an accurate physical understanding of the material behavior. Furthermore such differences cannot be simply explained away by arbitrarily changing the values of the component refractive indices. We note that the NPDD model, introduced by Sheridan et al. in 2000 [5], (see [6][7][8]), does not suffer from any such quantitative uncertainty. When using the NPDD model, accurately measured component refractive index values are used, see [9], in agreement with tabulated values from the general literature. The NPDD model permits the inhibition, short exposure and postexposure effects to be quantitatively predicted. Most significantly in relation to [3], these quantitative results support the value of monomer diffusion reported in [1,2]. While several other papers are cited in [3] to support the authors' claims, we must emphasize that no...