Dear Authors,
thank you for the revised version of your ms.

The ms has been reviewed again. Despite the fact that the reviewer sees a high potential for a publication of the ms, the reviewer still has several severe concerns about the presentation and interpretation of the results. Thus, the ms is not acceptable in its present version and will need a further major revison.

To this end, you are invited to re-submit the ms only after carefully addressing the concerns of the reviewer.

Best wishes
Hermann Bange

Dear authors,
thank you for submitting a revised version of your ms.
There are a few minor and technical issues which should addressed carefully before the ms can be accpeted for final publication.

Best regards
Hermann Bange

1) My comment:

The introduction is focussing on upwelling regions, however, the relevance of halocarbon emissions from upwelling regions in a global context is not mentioned. Therefore, an additional sentence mentioning the global distributions of oceanic halocarbon sources/fluxes would be very helpful to illustrate the significance of upwelling regions in relation to other oceanic regions. See e.g. Quack & Wallace (2003) and Butler et al. (2007)

- Quack, B. and Wallace, D.W.R., 2003. Air-sea flux of bromoform: Controls, rates, and implications. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 17(1): 1023, doi:10.1029/2002GB001890.
- Butler et al. (2007) Oceanic distributions and emissions of short-lived halocarbons. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 21(1), doi:10.1029/2006gb002732.


2) Reviewer's comments:

This is a much improved version of the paper and the authors are to be commended. While I am still struggling with the ultimate source of these gases and with the uncertainties of this approach and their impact on the conclusions, I feel the authors have taken these data as far as they can and that the paper should be published. The paper is much better organized, the analysis straightforward, and the study likely to inspire additional research. Although I have noted that the paper can be accepted as is, I do have a few minor suggestions, none of which are showstoppers. These are as follows:

Line 39 - I don't think "confirms" is a good word here. It implies some great controversy where there is none. "underscores" might be a better word.

Lines 168-187 -- These two sections should be combined. Section 2.3 does not have enough substance to warrant it being a separate section.

Line 169 - although the authors changed "was" to "were", I believe "was" is correct, as the subject of the sentence ("total") is singular. (That might depend upon which English is being considered, however.)

Line 212 - "three to six hourly" is a little awkward. Perhaps "every three to six hours, coincident with VSLS measurements . . ."?

Line 509 - insert "near-surface" between "observed" and "atmospheric"

Line 577 - insert apostrophe in "ships"

Line 676 - Again, I think "confirms" is the wrong word. They might want to try " .... demonstrates the close linkage between VSLS abundance and stability of the MABL."

Line 708 (Figure 2) - Should the advective delivery have an arrow at the top of the box? It seems the "convective loss" as used here is really a net flux and therefore incorporates any top down flux. If that's so, then it would be illogical to re-assert that flux as advective delivery. (This does not affect their computations, but I believe would be more consistent with their interpretation of the paper.)

Daar Authors,
thank you for the revised ms version.
I am happy to let you know, that the ms is now accpetable for publication in ACP.

Please do not forget to acknowledge (in the acknowledgements) the very helpful comments of the reviewers which helped to improve the ms considerably.

With best regards
Hermann Bange