Dear authors,

The two reviewers found the paper much improved and their concerns properly addressed. They have a few remaining suggestions that I would like you to carefully consider, to improve the manuscript accordingly, and to respond to their comments.

Yours sincerely,
Dominik Brunner

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for the revisions. The reviewers had suggested only minor changes and I consider your responses and amendments as adequate.

However, before being able to accept your publication, I have quite a large number of additional suggestions/corrections, most of them addressing issues with grammar and language, but also a few comments/questions on the content. I don't expect you to respond to all these changes point by point, but nevertheless, please try to account for them as much as possible. I would also be happy if you could briefly respond to the most critical comments I had.

Please also note that your paper must finish with a conclusions section. Thus, please split the current discussion section into a discussion and a conclusion.

I think you should be able to incorporate my suggestions (see attached annotated PDF file) rather quickly.

Yours sincerely
Dominik Brunner

Dear authors,

It is my pleasure to let you know that I consider your manuscript acceptable subject to a few technical corrections that don't need to be reiterated anymore.

Thank you for amending the manuscript according to my suggestions and also for the responses to my main points. Overall, the manuscript has greatly improved. The conclusions section is very well written and to the point. The discussions section, on the other hand, could have been shortened quite a bit, but that's rather a matter of style than a critical issue.
I like the overall concept of the approach presented in this study. I was only worried about some details of its implementation, which are now more clearly exposed and discussed.

Small corrections:
- Page 1, Line 19: delete "is appropriate".
- P2, L75-76: A more elegant formulation would be "…, but the representation of the transport and emission spread by these models …"
- P3, L99: "prior knowledge emissions" -> "prior knowledge of emissions"
- P3, L119: "product" -> "products"
- P3, L139: "practical guidance" may be better than "practical details", if that's what you mean
- P6, L255: I suggest to change the formulation to ".. from simple Gaussian models to Lagrangian dispersion and sophisticated CFC models ..". I know what you mean by "coupling" here, but Lagrangian dispersion models are not always coupled to "sophisticated CFD" models and, moreover, Eulerian CFD models are sometimes used directly without any Lagrangian model coupled to them.
- P8, L352: "errors statistics" -> "error statistics"
- P9, L395: "of Pasquill classification" -> "of the Pasquill classification"
- P9, L430: "using an sensitive" -> "using a sensitive"
- Section 3.1: The last sentence of this section isn't easily understandable.
- P13, L599: "is systematically consistent" -> "is consistent".
- P13, L602: I assume you mean "pronounced turbulent structures" rather than "large turbulent structures".
- P14, L729: "to dominate too much over the others" -> "to dominate the others"
- P14, L738: "observartion" -> "observation"
- P14, L743-744: A more elegant formulation would be ".. for many of these sites not even the order of magnitude is known".
- Please change titles "Discussions" and "Conclusion" to "Discussion" and "Conclusions". The plural form should be used just the other way round.
- P18, L 879-880: "Promissing" -> "Promising" . Actually, this sentence and the following sen-tences in the same paragraph are rather difficult to understand.
Here's a suggestion for an alternative formulation for the paragraph: "The promising results of this study should be seen as a proof of concept rather than as a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of its applicability in different situations. In particular, more complex situations with buildings and other obstacles disturbing the flow will require the application of more sophisticated transport models than the simple Gaussian plume model applied here, but the overall concept of the combined statistical approach would still be valid."
- P18, L889: "to the significant uncertainties" -> "to the uncertainties". One "significant" is enough in this sentence.
- P18, L894: "questioning" - > "questionable"
- P19, L920: "spread" -> "spread out"

Sincerely
Dominik Brunner