Dear Kalogridis et al.,
I find the revisions to the manuscript satisfactory and the manuscript to be acceptable in the ACP with some minor corrections, listed below.

148-150: “The flux footprint at the site was estimated to vary between 60 m and 120 m for respectively low and strong wind conditions.”

What do the authors mean by flux footprint? Cumulative footprint of a certain percentage? Also footprint length should not depend so much on wind speed as on stability. How is it in this case?

179-181: “Both sampling inlets were slightly heated to about 1°C above ambient temperature with a thermocouple type K connected to a 12V power supply in order to prevent water condensation.”

Surely thermocouple was not connected to power supply but to whatever controller was used to control the heating.

330-331: “The flux of each compound is therefore calculated using a covariance function between the vertical wind speed (w) and the VOC mixing ratio (c).”

Not covariance function but covariance. Covariance function generally means covariance as a function of lag-time.

540-542: “Night-time concentrations were probably affected by remaining emissions from the day, which were mixed over a small volume due to a shallow nocturnal boundary layer.”

This sentence is ambiguous. What do you mean by “remaining emissions from the day”? A likely explanation for higher night-time mixing ratios is small monoterpene emission continuing in dark from monoterpene storing plants.

723: “…an isoprene basal emission rate of 7.43 mg m-2 h-1 is recommended…”

Three significant figures seems much too high accuracy considering the uncertainty of this value. I suggest writing 7.4 mg m-2h-1. Please reconsider the accuracy of values given also elsewhere.

Sincerely,
Janne Rinne

Dear C. Kalogridis et al.,
I am pleased to accept your manuscript to be published in the ACP.
Sincerely,
Janne Rinne