Dear authors,

Thanks for the comprehensive and very thoughtful study. Your improvement of the manuscript based on the reviewers' comments is much appreciated. I found nearly all your responses are satisfactory, and just wondered about the issue of potential fluctuations by the MFCs. Please see my comments below. Could you give a second thought on this issue?

Best regards,
Huilin Chen

Page 57/Line 34: The potential fluctuations introduced by the MFCs should have the same impacts on all analyzers, and therefore will affect most the one with the highest precision. However, when I compare the Allan deviation plots of [N2O] at 326.5 ppb and at ~1000 ppb at 1-10 second average times, it does not seem to be the case (OA-ICOS I was also significantly affected although it is much less precise compared to QCLASII &III at 1 Hz), which implies that the potential fluctuations introduced by the MFCs may not be the dominating factor. Any other potential factors?

Page 58/Line 6: The 300 s precision of QCLAS III at ~1000 ppb N2O (10 ∙ 10-1) is a factor of 4 greater than that at 326.5 ppb N2O (2.5∙ 10-1). A summary of different analyzers may be more representative.

Table 6: ~10000 ppb N2O, OA-ICOS I, 1σ N2O (600s) 1.3 ∙ 10-3 should be 1.3? And what’s the reason for the exceptionally low [N2O] drift rate of 1.2∙10-3 for QCLAS I?

Dear authors,

Thanks again for the comprehensive and very thoughtful study. Congratulations!

Best regards,
Huilin Chen