Abstract

We examine the statements in [J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 28, 658 (2011)] that a “confusingly wide range of values (of monomer diffusion rates) have been reported in the literature” and that the authors “provide unambiguous evidence that the monomer diffusion rate in a commonly used acrylamide polyvinyl alcohol-based material is of the order of ${10}^{-10}{\mathrm{cm}}^2/\mathrm{s}$”. We discuss this result and briefly summarize the differences between two models which have been proposed to explain behavior of holographic photopolymers and consider their implications.

©2012 Optical Society of America

Monomer diffusion rates in photopolymer material: Part I. Low spatial frequency holographic gratings: reply

John T. Sheridan, Michael Gleeson, and Ciara Close
J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 29(3) 460-462 (2012)

Monomer diffusion rates in photopolymer material. Part I. Low spatial frequency holographic gratings

C. E. Close, M. R. Gleeson, and J. T. Sheridan
J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 28(4) 658-666 (2011)

Monomer diffusion rates in photopolymer material. Part II. High-frequency gratings and bulk diffusion

C. E. Close, M. R. Gleeson, D. A. Mooney, and J. T. Sheridan
J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 28(4) 842-850 (2011)

Material slow light and structural slow light: similarities and differences for nonlinear optics [Invited]: comment

Euvgenii Aleksandrov and Valerii Zapasskii
J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 29(9) 2643-2643 (2012)

Material slow light and structural slow light: similarities and differences for nonlinear optics [Invited]: reply

Robert W. Boyd
J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 29(9) 2644-2645 (2012)