I would like to thank the authors for incorporating the suggestions made by the reviewers. The revised version looks pretty good and it is almost ready for publication; however, there are some minor comments that need to be addressed before I can accept the manuscript.

Reviewer #3:

Lines 102-105: It would be good if the authors included an additional sentence or two here stating how this work fills observational gaps in current knowledge of INPs in the Arctic. They could indicate that most measurements (such as the ones they talk about) are conducted at the ground. Vertical measurements of INPs are rare, especially in the Arctic, and that’s why the current work is of such great value. Measurements like these help reduce uncertainties estimating INP concentrations and Arctic cloud impacts in models of all scales.

Line 113: Do the authors mean “markers” instead of “star”? There is only 1 flight track with the star, but there are definitely more samples with INP data that are presented.

Lines 118-119: Can omit “The sampling locations as well as sampling altitudes are shown in Fig. 1.” Since that is already said on line 112.

Lines 229, 243: It might make more sense to report concentrations at -25C so it is more comparable to values reported by both the current work and Borys (i.e., values at -25C from Creamean et al. and the orders of magnitude, which still look like 3 anyway).

Lines 249-250: And how these change seasonally over the Arctic annual cycle.

Lines 255-256: Add the Hiranuma et al. reference here too.

Lines 342-344: Shi et al (2022) does show that HLD can influence the Arctic at all times of the year, concluded from modelling results.

Lines 386-387: “Always” is a bit too strong. These results are certainly true for the Arctic spring at lower latitudes; this is not always true for the high Arctic and/or other seasons. Easy fix here is to explain this is for these types of conditions (spring, lower Arctic latitudes) specifically.

Figure 3: Since the authors talk about Porter’s and Creamean’s newer papers in the intro, it might make sense to add those here. This is not imperative since the authors already include quite a nice range of measurements, but would be nice to tie in.

Dear Alberto Sanchez-Marroquin and Coauthors,

I am happy to accept your manuscript for publication in ACP. Congratulations.

Luis Ladino