Dear Authors,

The reviewers have recommended your manuscript for publication and have emphasised on its high quality. Moreover, you have responded to all issues that have been raised. I am therefore very happy to decide that the manuscript can be published after minor revisions. Please find the list of minor requests here below.

1)
Write "1/(3e) folding time" or "1/(3e)" flush rate instead of "1/3e folding time" etc., which has created some confusion throughout the document.
I wonder whether 1/(3e) is commonly used terminology? Is there a particular reason for not using the 1/e^2 or the 10 % levels instead?
2)
Fig. 4 and bottom of page 5: please indicate the confidence level of uncertainty values.
3)
Top of page 6: "1 sigma Allan plot" is unconventional terminology. Use "Allan-Werle plot" instead.
4)
End of section 4.2: use "conservative uncertainty" instead of "upper uncertainty"
5)
line 104: "response times" instead of "a response times"
6)
line 127: "standard liter per minute" instead of "standard liters per minute"
7)
line 278 "shows" instead of "show"
8)
line 294: The phrase around "under sampling" is difficult to understand. Do you mean "undersampling"?
8)
Fig. 1
The axis scale for the ozone cross section is not well defined. Please add markers for the 0.0 and the 1.0e-17 cm^2 levels. One has the impression that the peak value is at 1.2e-17 cm^2 instead of 1.15e-17 cm^2 given in the Gorshelev et al. (Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 609–624, 2014) paper.
The figure could also be improved by adding the sensitivity weighted cross section, ie the product LED*R*sigma.

Dear Authors,

Thank you again for submitting your manuscript to AMT. I approve your corrections and decide that the article can be published as is.

With kind regards