Dear authors, co-authors,

I have read your response to the reviewers comments as well as the revision of the ms submitted for publication in ACP. I overall see that you have properly addressed those comments in your response and the revised version of the ms. Especially also since I am really interested in this subject, I have critically read the revision once more again checking once more again the overall content but also noticing still some issue on relative minor issues that need according to me some editing. I think that consideration of these last minor issues will result in a nice quality paper describing in a very clear way what can be learned from these measurements and the analysis. You can find these editors comments in the pdf.

Regards, Laurens Ganzeveld

Dear author, co-authors, have checked the response to my last round of editors comments as well as the revised ms and accept the paper now for publication in ACP; only had some last minor remaining issues:

2.7: Duce 91 ka; change this to "the Duce et al. (1991) parameterization of ka"
3.2.1: (n = 12 – 22); what does this reflect 12 out of 22 samples or?
3.2.2: "ECHMA/MESSy Atmospheric Chemistry"; change this to "ECHAM/MESSy Atmospheric Chemistry"

Despite the fact that the review process has taken a long time, also due to quite some challenges in finding reviewers with the optimal expertise (and avaialable time), I think that there is now this interesting paper on OVOC ocean-atmosphere exchange and its implications for AC and let's see how the main take-home message will be further appreciated by the broader research community,

Laurens Ganzeveld