We reply to comments raised in Kumar and Puri (2011). The comments claim that our results may be considered inconsequential because of the detector efficiency at Ge K-edge energy and the procedure of the photo-peak area evolution. However, to obtain detector efficiency in different energies, the variation of the factor I(0)G epsilon as a function of the energy was drawn and the error arising from the detector efficiency added to our results. Moreover, the peak fitting procedure was made by the software program and the values of the reduced chi(2) and coefficient of determination show that the fits are quite adequate. Therefore, our results may be considered consequential. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.