Authors have addressed many of the concerns raised by the reviewers, including additional details about the sampling system, equipment and derivation of emission factors. There are a few important questions still to address as identified in the attached file.

I am satisfied with the authors' responses to all the issues except for one.

It’s apparent that this team has worked hard to produce these measurements and that the data could be valuable. I am sorry to keep returning with more requests, and yet it seems that the authors have repeatedly failed to address the reviewers' and editor's request for context. Reviewer 1 indicated that this paper could not be published until the broader context was provided. I (editor) am trying not just to improve the paper, but to meet the reviewer's primary demand.

Authors appear to believe that just because these vessels were measured in China, they are somehow different. If this is the case, then vessels must be measured in all 200 countries of the world. Of course, China is a major contributor to shipping.

Authors have added explanation of how Chinese vessels may differ (page 4, lines 17-26). However, this is not followed by showing how the vessels that were actually tested are representative of these differences. If authors claim that work is needed to represent the situation of vessels in China, then these vessels should be described in that context. If these vessels are similar in fuel, engine type and so on, compared with others that have been tested, but the emission factors are different, authors should explain this too, and evaluate whether the difference is significant. Reviewer 1 indicated that a comparison of emission by power level could be done. This isn't addressed.

Table 4 is a good start, as I mentioned previously, but it is far from addressing this question. Authors say that engine type is an influencing factor, but no engine type is given in Table 4 (unless authors are using fuel type as a proxy for engine type; in that case the terminology throughout the manuscript should be revised!) Authors do not even compare emissions among only HFO ships. Fuel types in the current study are not given in Table 4 for comparison (although they are elsewhere in the manuscript). Some of the abbreviations in the last column are not explained in the footnote. The added text on page 23 does not provide any of this context. Readers should be able to look at the text and table and answer the question, "What do we now know about ship emissions that we did not know before?"

Authors claim that there is an "urgent need" for more measurements. This claim has not been supported by the analysis in the paper. In order to support this statement, authors need to say what is missing from the overall understanding of ships.

This is the fourth request for providing context (First: Reviewer 1; Second: with initial editor comment; Third: with "final" editor decision). The paper is otherwise acceptable, including the technical quality. But authors are not meeting the major request of editor and reviewer and the failure to respond puts the paper in a precarious position.

Thank you for addressing my comments and the reviewers' comments.