|Comments on the revised version of the work by Triesch et al., entitled “Concerted measurements of lipids in seawater and on submicron aerosol particles at the Cape Verde Islands: biogenic sources, selective transfer and high enrichments”|
In the amended version of this work, I think that the Authors have done a good job to accomplish the comments/requests raised in the first round of review by two anonymous reviewers.
I have few additional comments that the Authors should consider to improve their work for publication.
1. The text would benefit from a thorough revision by a native English speaker, to correct the syntax and phrasing of some sentences, make some of them more clear and sounding, check verb tenses (past or present? This should be more consistent throughout the text), correct some typos and avoid some improper/odd expressions.
2. Some doubts about statistics. I missed what was used as a test to assess significant differences in the comparisons among samples. This should be stated in the “2.2.5 Statistical analysis” section. Moreover, please avoid/correct too general expressions related to the results of the statistical tests performed.
Here are only some examples from the text, but this aspect should be corrected throughout the text:
-“corresponds well”, please be more specific
-“becomes lower”, quantitatively? Is it significant? (p value?)
-“increases”, quantitatively? Is it significant ? (p value?)
-“showed not only a much lower concentration but also much less pronounced variance”, please be more specific.. Is it significant? What do the Authors mean with “variance”? Did they perform a test based on the confidence intervals of different groups of samples?
-“was always higher […], with one exception […]”, this is incorrect phrasing
-“strong” or “strongly” or similar, please check all the times this word is (mis)used, and use a more sounding statistical/scientific wording
-“weak relation”, is it significant or not? No sense to distinguish between stronger or weaker significance.
“somewhat more resistant to degradation” could the Authors be more “quantitative”?
“For aerosol, however, the high enrichment of total lipids corresponds well with the consideration of their high surface activity” this is an example of sentence, which is a bit odd and not clear in terms of statistical sense. Especially in the abstract and conclusions, the Authors should take particular care to use more sounding/scientific expressions.
3. Regarding the comment by Rev#1: “R#1-8b) I don’t know if it makes sense, but would it be possible to estimate an EFaer based on ULW properties instead of SML components?”. The Authors’ reply provides interesting information, but the Authors’ conclusion is that this point raised by Rev#1 “does not provide any new insights […] and therefore we would prefer not to elaborate on this in the manuscript.” Actually, I encourage the Authors to consider this point in the manuscript, as obtaining similar EFaer values if using ULW or SML values is not obvious and discussion about this could be deepened.
4. Figures. These could be improved in their graphical outputs (more consistent style - Avoid grey/unuseful lines - Use a heavier stroke to define bar/graph/axes contours – larger color legends – overall higher file resolution). Figure 6 might be a bit “poor” in information. This might be joined/enriched with one of the figures provided in the supplementary file (by transferring that in the main text). Or, just put Figure 6 in the supplementary file as well.