Thank you very much for the thorough revision of your manuscript. There are some additional corrections needed before the manuscript can be accepted for publication in ACP.

1- First of all the most appropriate naming for ‘Panth’ is ‘Pnondust’ since what is calculated by equation (2) is the residual P once the P from dust is removed based on Al concentrations in the aerosols. In addition, there are cases where aerosols of biological origin (page 11, line 4) or even one could claim sea-salt aerosol that contains P and Cl- (for instance how the points with high Cl-to-TP ratio in Figure 6c are explained?)

2- Concerning the DOP from soil dust (page 7, 2nd paragraph and abstract line 28):
What the authors show with their data is that high DOP values are associated with the presence of crustal elements in the aerosol; the correlation with crustal elements does not necessarily mean that soil dust is a source of DOP. The coexistence of bioaerosols with dust under intensive dust events has been observed in the Mediterranean and in the Atlantic (see for instance Griffin et al Atmos. Environ. 2007 and discussion in Kanakidou et al. Environmental Research Letters, 2018).
Therefore I would argue that the observed correlation between DOP and crustal elements could indicate the co-existence of bioaerosols rich in organic phosphorus and of dust with crustal material.

Also Kanakidou et al (2012) provided an organic phosphorus budget showing a relatively large marine source (almost 80%; but very uncertain in magnitude) and for the continental sources contributions of 4.5% (soil dust), 9% (bioaerosols) and 7% (fossil fuel and biomass burning).

Furthermore, Myriokefalitakis et al (2016) reported that, at the global scale, approximately half of atmospheric TDP (and not DOP as stated in the manuscript page7 line 15) is from primary biological aerosol particles. Myriokefalitakis et al (2016) also provided budgets (in their supplementary material) that show contributions of various sources to the total source of TDP (referred as DP in their manuscript) : about 39% from soil dust, 3.5% from biomass burning, 8% from anthropogenic sources and 45% from bioaerosols. Note that these numbers are associated with large uncertainty.

Please correct the numbers and the discussion accordingly.

Griffin DW, Kubilay N, Kocak M, Gray M A, Borden T C and Shinn E A 2007 Airborne desert dust and aeromicrobiology over the Turkish Mediterranean coastline Atmos. Environ. 41, 4050–62

Kanakidou M., Myriokefalitakis S., Tsigaridis K.: Aerosols in atmospheric chemistry and biogeochemical cycles of nutrients, Environ. Res. Lett. 13 063004, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabcdb

3- Page 2, line 31: remove ‘oceanic’ this range refers to the global scale.
4- Page 2, line 32: add Myriokefalitakis et al., 2016 reference there also.
5- Page 3, line 11: Myriokefalitakis et al. (2016) estimated that acid-driven solubilisation flux of P from mineral dust contributed about one third to the total TDP source.
6- Page 5, lines 24-25: ‘ which comprises 8% mineral aerosol mass’ do you mean : ‘ in which Al comprises 8% of the mineral aerosol mass’ ? please check phrasing.
7- Page 7, line 26: add also reference by Nenes et al., 2011

Thank you very much for the careful revision. The manuscript can be now published in ACP.
kind regards, the co-editor, Maria Kanakidou