|I have read over your replies. Thank you for making changes to the manuscript. I just have two minor revisions that still need to be addressed. |
1. Kalogerakis et al. (2016) only reported that OH(v=9)+O(3P)→OH(v=3)+O(1D) is an important deactivation channel of OH(v=9)+O(3P)→products. They did not provide any rate or branching ratio of the channel. To our understanding, “important” means “not negligible” but it does not mean “dominating”. Thus, we assumed that OH(v=9)+O(3P)→OH(v=3)+O(1D) has to occur but this channel is not necessarily the fastest deactivation path of OH(v=9)+O(3P).
This was stated in the text (l. 490-493):
“However, not much is known about the individual branching ratios of R11 except that
OH(v=9)+O(3P)→OH(v=3)+O(1D) is an important deactivation channel but not necessarily the dominating one (Kalogerakis et al., 2016).”
Furthermore, we have to emphasize that, at least to our knowledge, the rates and deactivation schemes applied in the OH model are not in conflict with ANY laboratory measurements but partly disagree with other model studies.
Kalogerakis et al. (2016) measured the rate coefficient of the OH(v=9)+O(3P)→OH(v=3)+O(1D) pathway. Accounting for mesospheric temperatures, the authors suggested a rate of (2.3+/1)e-10 cm3/sec. Your results suggest, for the same pathway, a rate coefficient 0.2 * 2.3e-10 cm3/sec, which is 4.6e-9 cm3/sec, about 3 times lower than the lower bound suggested by Kalogerakis et al. (2016). Whether the reaction is the dominating one or not, the rate coefficient you use for this pathway still does not agree with laboratory results.
In general, many O retrieval studies which use OH models only need to consider OH(v=9) and/or OH(v=8) and therefore, state to state pathways coupling higher and lower levels do not need to be considered carefully. Because you are fitting four bands and require detailed description of OH(v=3-9), these state to state pathways become very important. Currently your OH model disagrees with laboratory measurements, so a sentence in the conclusion and abstract should be added as a disclaimer noting the differences.
2. "Figure 6 displays the vertical profiles of [O(3P)] and [H] obtained by the Best fit model in comparison with the results derived from SABER OH(9-7)+OH(8-6) VER only (Mlynczak et al., 2018). The [O(3P)] profiles seen in Fig. 6a agree below 85 km but the Best fit model shows gradually larger values in the altitude region above. These larger values are caused by the different deactivation rates and schemes of OH(v)+O(3P), agreeing with general pattern reported in Panka et al. (2018). We have to point out that other studies (e.g. von Savigny and Lednyts’kyy, 2013) observed a pronounced [O(3P)] maximum of about 81011 cm-3 at 95 km."
It is clear in Figure 6 that your O begins to gradually increase in the upper altitudes. In a recent paper by Zhu & Kaufmann et al (2018), the authors show that O retrievals by Mlynczak et al. (2018), Panka et al. (2018), and Zhu and Kaufmann (2018) all show O densities which peak around 95 km (see Figures 2 and 3). I am confused by the statement where you report that your O follows the general pattern of Panka et al. (2018) as this increasing pattern is not shown in Panka et al. (2018) or Zhu and Kaufmann (2018). Please remove this sentence or clarify your meaning.