both reviews are in general very positive. However, I would like to see some more consideration of some of the points mentioned in particular by reviewer 1 and also how these are reflected in the revised manuscript. In particular these are the points on the allocation of sources in far away places with little sensitivity (also given the observation by rev. 2 that this information is based on very small enhancements above background). I miss a discussion on the link to to the population density and some more specification on how this was done.

(page numbers of original ACPD manuscript and reviews)

p. 8214. l11.: I was also puzzled by the not-inclusion of the Zep data. A statement should at least be made why this station was not included.

Comment on p. 8225, l.7 : I agree with the reviewer that the uncertainties assigned seem extremly (and unrealistically) low. I think that this is linked to the use of the error of the mean. An error of the mean can (i) only be used when one has repeated measurements of the exact same quantity (while emission may vary in time) and (ii) only on purely statistical uncertainties. Systematic uncertainties (arising e.g. from the method itself, from uncertainties in deriving the baseline etc.) can not be reduced by multiple measurements.

Comment on p. 8228, l. 15: please indicate in the manuscript how the maximum error is derived.

Please give some more consideration to these points, which will help to clerify the message. In particular this refers to the uncertainties of the derived emissions and the assumptions in assigning these in remote region.