In the author response and revised version, you have satisfyingly addressed all Referee comments. Yet I have identified some minor issues that need improvement before the final publication. They are listed in detail in the following.

Best regards
Christof Ammann
AMT Associate Editor

COMMENTS
Line 28ff. Rephrase (and shorten) these two sentences to better focus on the results of the present study. E.g. "In contrast to our observations, the ozone deposition velocity in the recently developed two-layer model by Luhar et al. (2018) shows not major dependence on wind speed and underestimates the measured values."

Line 54: This is too generalized for eddy covariance. Specify to: "...is the best way of observing fluxes in the atmospheric surface layer ..."

Line 114: I think the meaning of "sea-surface composition" is not clear to the average reader. Please explain.

Line 134: Do you mean 'standard' liters at atmospheric pressure? If not, define the pressure for this value.

Line 136: The meaning of "this sample manifold" is unclear. A manifold was not mentioned previously.

Line 156: I suggest to clarify the sentence as follows: "It is necessary to calculate EC fluxes over a suitable averaging interval to reduce ..."

Line 159: I suggest to replace "averaging period" by the more common and specific term "averaging interval" for the EC flux calculation here and throughout the text.

Line 182: What "supply of ozone" was used here? How was the concentration determined? With a gas-phase titration?

Line 200: Wat do you mean with "a modified workflow"?

Line 221: It should be added here, what this means for the uncertainty of the (quantitative) footprint estimates.

All Figures: I do not at all agree with the request of Reviewer #1 that the figure captions should include an interpretative take home message! Please remove the corresponding statements e.g. in Figs. 1, 5, 10, 11. The captions have to include all necessary information to read the figure, but the interpretation should be placed in the main text when citing the figure.

Figure 5 caption: Specify "Roughness length for each EC flux interval (black dots) and smoothed fit line (solid red)"
Also specify how the fit line was calculated and what the red shaded range around the line represents.

Figure 7: Panels A and B are not very informative with present scaling (dominated by few outliers). In panel A use the same y-axis scaling as in Fig. 8 (-0.1 ... +0.2) and add the horizontal zero line. In panel B rescale y-axis (e.g. -0.8 ... +0.4) and add the horizontal zero line.

Figure 8 caption: Specify to "...with interquartile ranges shown as red circles with vertical bars. A 2nd order polynomial fit function is plottes as dotted red line. ..."

Figure 9: In this figure it is not possible for the reader to really see the land surface part of the flux footprint. I suggest to add a second zoom-in picture (e.g. 500x500m) with more details about the direct surrounding of the tower (similar to Fig. 1).

Figure 10 caption: Use consistent labelling ("Sea only", "water surfaces only") in diagram and caption. Also mention, how the "Sea only" data were determined from the measured fluxes.

Figure 12 caption: Improve the phrasing. Use full individual sentences instead of "with ... with ..."

LANGUAGE CORRECTIONS
Line 21: better write "with the tide."
Line 42: "the deposition velocity is ..."
Line 61: replace "in" by "from" or "based on"
Line 65: change to "at the water surface" (the genitive 's is mainly used for persons)
Line 108: replace "these" by "the"
Line 200: change to "The molar flux ..."
Line 299,299,306,308,309: use past tense "varied", "observed", "exhibited", "reported", "increased"
Line 427: change to "...found that their data ..."
Line 479: omit "predicted" here (the model was used in a diagnostic, not in a prognostic way)
Line 480: omit "estimated". It is unnecessary here.

In your response and the revised version, you have made most of the necessary corrections. Only a few technical corrections are remaining (see comments below). Subject to these corrections I accept the manuscript for final publication.
Best regards
Christof Ammann
AMT Associate Editor

COMMENTS

line 57/58: replace "in" by "based on" (or alternatively replace "observations" by "studies")

Figure 9: Author response to previous comment "We realise the exact land presence is not very easy to see in the footprint plot, but the output from the online parameterisation is not of sufficiently high image quality to zoom in very far in a neat fashion. Resolution aside, the presence of every contour bunched near the observation point makes a zoomed image of limited extra use."
>> I see this problem. As an alternative solution, I suggest a modification of Figure 1: the authors could give a better zoom-in picture of the EC site and the direct surrounding by removing the shade from Fig. 1 and by shifting the wind distribution to beside the satellite picture (instead of overlaying them).

Figure 9: Author response to previous comment "As this is not a plotting script developed by us, these are non-trivial issues to try and resolve ..."
>> If you produced this figure with a software that is not under the authors control, you eventually should specify the software in the figure caption.

Figures: As I mentioned in my previous comments, the figure captions should contain all necessary information about the elements shown in the figure. Therefore add the information about the following elements:
-Figure 3: dashed horizontal lines?
-Figure 8: red shaded range?
-Figure 11: blue dashed line and blue shaded range?
-Figure 12: red shaded range?

Figure 10: The last part of the caption text was shifted below the next figure. Please correct.