Dear authors, the majority of the reviewers' comments were properly addressed. However, I stumbled upon a few minor issues which require mostly technical corrections. Some reviewers’ comments were addressed in your replies but I couldn’t find the respective changes in the revised version of your manuscript. My apologies in case I missed some of the respective changes in the manuscript. I realized that the track changes version did not fully match the clean, resubmitted version which made the tracking of your revisions somehow cumbersome. For example, the sentence in lines 506 to 508 is not included in the track changes version (part of doc amt-2018-329-author_response-version2.pdf) and it isn’t clear in the track changes version that Figure 8 was moved to the supplementary material.
Overall, the changes seem to be somehow hastily applied, also seen in the number of remaining fragments (single symbols like dots or brackets) which are still present in the revised manuscript. Thus, I urge you to once more carefully go through your manuscript to clean it up and to also check that the references to the Figures and Tables are correct. See the (most likely) incomplete list of these little incorrectnesses.


If not indicated otherwise, line numbers refer to the document amt-2018-329-manuscript-version4.pdf uploaded on March 11.



Line 37: replace “,” by “.”

Lines 37 to 39: rephrase last sentence of the abstract as it uses two times “provide”.

Line 109: remove “.”

Line 173: remove “.”

Line 181: remove “.”

Reviewer #2 suggested using lower case p for pressure throughout the document. You stated that you changed it accordingly but it isn’t done consistently. Please do so. See e.g. line 195, in Table 1, second column etc.

Line 238: add space

Line 246: I suppose that you want to refer here to the WMO/GAW scale, which is correctly called “WMO CO2 X2007” scale.

Lines 299-300: “which includes all environmental variables”: change to “which includes pressure, temperature and humidity”, as suggested by reviewer #2 and as claimed in your reply to the reviewer that you already did so.

Line 308: remove “.”

Line 322: typo: “Jussie filed or site”

Line 325: I recommend calling this paragraph “Saclay field site tests” as the current title rather suggests a description of the filed site and not the tests themselves.

Line 342: see comment to line 325 above.

Caption, table 2: “Slopes and intercept …” -> “Slopes and intercepts …”; change “Sensor 1 to are type HPP3.1, whereas Sensor 4 to 6 are HPP3.2.” to “Sensors S1.x are type HPP3.1, whereas sensors S2.x are HPP3.2.” or remove this sentence completely as it is defined above.

Line 466: “During this test (section 3.3, Saclay field site) …”: please simplify: “During this test (section 3.3.1) …”

Lines 466 - 468: See comment of reviewer #2 on lines 450-452 of the submitted version. “I suggest to leave out this sentence …” as statement is too bold. You claim in the reply that you did correct the statement but no changes were ultimately done in the revised version. Please revise this sentence. Maybe to “… {CO2} and the atmospheric variables pressure, temperature and humidity … which affect the performance … were measured …”.

Line 489: add “.”, remove “(“.

Lines 490 to 495: I cannot find the “statistical information on ambient parameters” mentioned in your reply to reviewer #2 in response to her/his comment on line 505-510 of the submitted version.

Line 499: reference is made to Figure 8. There is no Figure 8 in the revised manuscript.

Line 503: reference is made to Figure 10. There is no Figure 10 in the revised manuscript. Must be Figure 7. Please doublecheck all references to the Figures.

Line 537: write “Jussieu ambient air measurements (WA2-2); if it is of importance that these are urban measurements, please clarify the type of the stations in section 3.3.

Table 3: please revise the formatting as suggested by reviewer #2.

Regards,

Martin Steinbacher

Dear authors,
I am glad to let you know that the paper is now accepted for publication in AMT.
You will be informed by the editorial office about the next steps in the publication process.
Kind regards
Martin Steinbacher