|The revision seems to have improved substantially from the previous version. Most of my concerns, as well as those from the other reviewers, from the originally submitted manuscript have been well addressed. The inclusion of multiple years of simulation and comparison with the KORUS-AQ have greatly strengthened the results. Overall, the revised manuscript looks good. My remaining major comment is about the Conclusions section. I understand that this section has been reworked substantially to address the concerns raised by me and reviewer #2. However, in present form, it becomes lengthy and to some point handwavy with not really relevant details. I agree with reviewer #2’s suggestion that it is important to include discussions on uncertainties, various key processes that are important for source gas and product gas transport to assess Br budget. However, you should be mindful that conclusion and discussion need to be succinct and to the point, by focusing on the key messages. It would be good to hear what the other reviewers feel about the current conclusions, but, in my view, this section can use some significant condensation.|
Some minor editorial comments:
P2 L72. It is not 100% accurate to say “Once bromoform is photolyzed …” as bromoform can also lost significantly due to reaction with OH. Suggest change to “Once bromoform is photochemically destroyed …”
P3 L87. Here and throughout the text: I think the more common term is “Western Pacific”, not “West Pacific”
P3 L112. Bromine budgets -> bromine budget
P4 L146. I would suggest use either season-dependent or vary with season. “seasonally dependent” is probably not grammatically correct.
P5 L156. Consider change to “To assess the long-term …”
P5 L161. Should be “1/12 degree”
P5 L168. Suggest change “generally purely advective” to “primarily advection”
P5 L182. Add “a” before “specific”
P5 L183. Suggest change to “is representative of long-lived non-volatile DBP”
P6 L201. Should be “Henry’s Law constant”
P7 L244. I would just use “bottom-up bromoform emissions”, with no “derived”
P7 L247. Delete “area” after “Southeast”. These are regions, not areas.
P7 L258. I don’t think “evaluate the additional anthropogenic bromoform” is the correct description here. You are not really evaluating these results against observations (the KORUS-AQ comparison would be adequate to justify this point either as there were very few measurements up in the UT/LS region), but calculating the differences using sensitivity runs. I would suggest change to “quantify the additional anthropogenic bromoform contribution based on …”
P14 L514. I think here “substantial source of …” is adequate. The word “growing” is misleading unless you have data suggesting the water chlorination consumption is growing, hence more formation of bromoform from anthropogenic sources.
P15 L528. Amounts -> amount
P15 L549. Budgets -> budget
P15 L549. Aspect -> aspects
P26 Table 2, last column. Please clarify whether it is ppt of CHBr3 or ppt of Br?
Figures 6-10 caption and color bar legend, and the corresponding discussion in the text. For clarity, please clarify whether these are ppt of CHBr3 or ppt of Br?