Each of the three referees agrees that you have made significant efforts in revising the paper to address their comments and that the paper should be published without further significant revision. Therefore I am pleased to accept the paper subject to technical corrections -- with these corrections being described below.

Referee 1 requests that you include some brief text/reference on the topic of vertical diffusion by intermittent turbulent layers:

"I am OK with most of the changes, but I still believe that a reference to the diffusive effects of turbulence in the stratospheric is warranted. I suggest that at line 9 on page 2, "Regarding turbulence measurements", the following be inserted:

Regarding turbulence measurements,*** there are two aspects of importance: first, its energy dissipation, and secondly its diffusive properties. We will concentrate on the former: large-scale diffusion in the stratosphere is a complex process due to the intermittent nature of the turbulence there, as summarized in some detail by Osman et al., (2016), among others.***
A relatively extensive dataset exists for the troposphere and tropopause region ....."

I don't insist on this -- because vertical diffusion is not a major emphasis of your work -- but I think it would be useful to make the link between your research and this field of research (distinct but closely related). (Making the citation might help others in future to identify the link.

Referee 3 says "there are still quite a few English grammar errors that need attention". I haven't had time to go through the revised paper in detail to identify these, but please can you check the paper again (perhaps where you are doubtful taking advice from someone who has more experience in scientific English).

As discussed, please can you submit the revised version of your manuscript which takes account of corrections to your results.

I am pleased to accept this version of the paper for publication in ACP.

Before providing a final version for publication please can you consider the following point and perhaps make an appropriate technical correction.

I felt the following text on p4 was somewhat confusion.

"This problem does not occur
for the BEXUS flights, where the sensors were placed further away from the supporting lines. For all other altitude bins the
average of both sensors is taken.

The BEXUS flight had a comparatively small distance between balloon and payload of 50 m. Thus, during considerable
times the payload flew through the wake of the balloon. Therefore, only limited altitude sections with large wind shears are considered for this flight."

You seem to be saying first that the BEXUS flights do not have a problem and then that they do have a problem. But perhaps the problem mentioned in the second sentence is different from the problem mentioned in the first sentence. It it is then the text would be clearer if you said that explicitly.