Dear Dr. Fontaine

In the response to reviewers files, it appears that modifications have been made to the manuscript that are not explicitly detailed in the response. I would request that the response to reviewers file be restructured so that it clearly delineates 1. the reviewer comment 2. The author response 3. Changes made to the manuscript.

I find that the review process proceeds much more smoothly towards potential publication if these steps are made.

Regards,

Tim Garrett

Dear Dr. Fontaine,

Thank you for the revision and detailed response to reviewers file. I feel that the reviewer comments are well addressed. However, I have a concern that I would like to see addressed prior to publication.

PSDs naturally follow something like a gamma or log-normal distribution. The PSDs that are presented look like they are missing much of a small mode in what is a bimodal distribution. Do you feel that there are no particles smaller than what is measured in the smallest 2DS size bin? Or, if you feel that there are, what is an estimate of the contribution of these missed particles to such integrated quantities as N, beta, and CWC?

In the latter case, which I recommend, one possible approach would be to extrapolate the tail of the small mode to smaller sizes than measured by the 2DS.

I would like to caution as well that it strikes me as dangerous to apply a Shattering Algorithm that assumes a priori what nature should look like. Poisson distributions are unnatural since they presume that the positions of particles are uncorrelated in space. A lack of any correlation violates the Second Law which forbids any system (e.g. a particle) from being isolated through space and time from its environment.

Regards

Tim Garrett