I think the authors address the comments from the reviewers, with the exception of the main comment from reviewer #1, which I think they only address partially. This is explained further in the comments following (I would like to see the response from the authors, but this should be a formality):

The pages and line numbers correspond to the revised manuscript.

As I see it, the authors do not quite follow the advice of referee #1 and provide a weaker statement that that suggested by the referee. I suggest the authors reword the last paragraph in sect. 6 to indicate that for studies of ozone mini-holes using reanalyses, one should follow the procedure outlined. I suggest the authors also provide in this section a comment on the relative merit of satellite data and reanalysis data for studying ozone mini-holes.

P. 2

L. 27: Please indicate here what you will do in each section of the paper.

P. 4

L. 12: concentrations. See also caption for Fig. 2.

P. 5

L. 8: I suggest you provide more details of the “flood filling” algorithm.

P. 9

L. 3: reanalyses.

P. 19

Fig. 4: If not too complicated to describe, I suggest the authors mention the periods over which they calculate the monthly averages.

P. 21

Fig. 8: Identify in the caption what is the reference ozone profile in panel A. Same for Fig. 9.

Tha authors have addressed my comments.