Dear Laura Tomsche et al.,
Thank you for the work put into the answers to the reviewers and the
detailed revision of the manuscript.

However, I do see still some room of needed improvement.

Even though the reviewers did not point to it, I think, you should
mention also the study by Vogel et al. (ACP, 2014) who also show CO and
CH4 enhancements and the transport pathways due to AMA outflow
observed during the ESMVAL campaign, as this is very similar work.

Reviewer #2 states that "most of the information exists without
clearly stating what the goal of this paper is"

You state that the goal is "to understand the transport pathways from
the source regions into the upper troposphere..."

As it stands, the manuscript contains still a lot of figures and it is
not clear in every case, whether all of these are needed to underline
the goal. Therefore I would ask you to review in what respect the
individual figures support your goal.

For example, figs. 4 and 5 show altitude and transport time at the
locations of the back trajectories from the complete flight path. That
is for perturbed and unperturbed air. You refer then to the (yet not
explained) figures 7 and 8 and the reader has to deduce which of the
trajectories are perturbed. Likely it would be better in the sense of
that goal to mark these trajectories, e.g. by different symbols for
below and above your threshold.

The explanation of figure 6 (cloud top pressure) should better include
a (rough) pressure value that you would assign to "regions with strong
convection"

figure 13/ particle density in PBL: These are for those trajectories
starting an the flight path at locations that have CH4 mixing ratios
above the threshold. That should also be mentioned in the figure
caption.

figs 24/25 It is somewhat confusing that you use blue/green colors for
CO and CH4 opposite for model and measurements. I think it is more
suggestive to use similar colors for the same molecule (e.g. light
blue and dark blue)

p17 l2ff.

fig 26 shows a few example trajectories from points of enhanced
CH4. As there are likely more points of enhanced CH4 along the flight
path, how do you select the shown trajectories? How do you show it is
outflow from the AMA? It is likely defined by the outflowing airmass.

p8/l21/equation 1
please don't mix words and the equation. Preferably use superscripts or subscripts
like CH_4^{threshold} or CH_4^{average}


p8/l27 "which confirms the usefulness of CH4" is rather sloppy
language. I would rather say "which confirms the possibility of this
threshold to divide the airmass origin between inside and outside
the AMA" or so.

Dear Laura Tomsche et al.,

Thank you for this quick correction. I am pleased to acceopt your manuscript for publication in ACP.
regards,
Jens-Uwe Grooß