Dear Authors,

Thank you again for your patience. The original reviewers requested to see the revised manuscript, and thus, I allowed them to re-review it. I've finally heard back from both reviewers. They agree the manuscript is much improved and should be accepted; however, one reviewer requested you address the very minor comments I've copied below. Once you address these final comments, I'll immediately accept as is.

Thanks again, Jason Surratt

Remaining comments from one of the reviewers:

"The authors clearly took the reviewers comments into account and I think that the manuscript has been improved significantly, for example the addition of the science questions in the Introduction section was very helpful. I just have a few small additional comments.


1.) The addition of Table 1 was important, but I still would like to see a little more details on the instruments such as the sensitivity and limits of detection.


2.) The diurnal variations of the trace gases that are in the supplement should be in the main text combined with the meteorological parameters in Figure 5.


3.) In Figure 3, I meant to have CO on a linear AND a log scale.


4.) How confident are you in the ozone data in Figure 5? If there are cross contaminations in the ozone data should they be included in this Figure or taken out here as well. If the data are used the interference has to be discussed in detail and described, which data are still useful.


5.) The outcomes of SAFIRED section is now much improved and very useful.