Dear Authors,

I carefully read the reviews and the article again.
Currently, I dont support a publication yet.

1. there is a patent dending and therefore you dont want to provide technical details. I understand this, but then this article comes to early.

2. I dont see an advantage of the charger now, since nobody knows the long-term behaviour yet. This is a big problem.

3. You claim that there is an increased charging sub sub-10 nm due to the charger. I dont think that this is due to the charger. I believe his is due to the nitrogen, which is used. Please look up the article "Wiedensohler, A. and H. J. Fissan (1991). Bipolar charge distribution of aerosol particles in high purity argon and nitrogen. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 14, 358-364". I found the same result by using nitrogen with a radioactive bipolar charger.

4. Overall, I dont see a novelty at the current stage yet.

Dear Christian,

please re-write the article that in a more a general way that you formulate recommendations of the use of a plasma charger based on the example of your development and your studies. This is much more needed than advertising your own charger and leaving other aspects out.
Certainly there are advantages about a plasma charger, especially, by using them in laboratory works. Unfortunately, people are using existing charger for all kind of purposes, without knowing or ignoring the exact limits for different environments.
You know that I am strongly engaged to improve atmospheric aerosol measurements, and precise recommendations would add more knowledge than bringing another charger into the game with the risk that people don’t use it properly.
For our community, we need such studies characterizing this kind of chargers in an open way, telling the limits, especially for atmospheric studies.

see the comments in the non-public section.