The paper by Hossaini et al al presents a detailed study of 1,2, Dichloroethane, also often referred to as ethylene dichloride. It uses a chemical transport model, atmospheric observations and estimates of production and emission rates to derive an atmospheric budget. The paper is well written and the assumptions and the methods are well justified. I have a few issues, which are more of technical nature concerning the data used which I would like the authors to clarify. One further issue is that I do not like the use of the name ethylenedichloride, which is not a systematic name and also not a specific name. I suggest to use 1,2-dichloroethane instead, which is the correct name and also clearer as it is clear that it is the unsymmetrically substituted compound. Most importantly, I would like the authors to discuss little bit more about the data quality (sample stability and comparison of calibration scales). Apart from that I only have a few minor issues below. I recommend the paper to be accepted after minor revisions.

Specific

l. 203: is ethene mainly of anthropogenic origin? or are there significant natural sources? 

section 2.4.: please include some information on the calibration scales used for the measurements and the comparability of the different observations from three different groups. Are they all on the same scale? Also, has the stability of 1,2-dichloroethane in the samples been analysed?

l. 270: does this mean that only the data below 3 km of HIPPO and ATOM were used? Why have the free tropospheric data not been used? 

l. 371, Fiugure 4: I could not find the blue shaded region to represent the model scenario ranges.

The manuscript presents the development of a new bottom-up emission inventory for 1-2 dichloroethane (EDC) with enhanced spatial and temporal resolution compared with previous studies. An increasing trend in the global annual flux of EDC between 2002 and 2020 is determined based on regionally distributed production and consumption data. The new inventory is used in TOMCAT to estimate the Source Gas (SGI) and Product Gas (PGI) Injection of chlorine to the stratosphere, which results in a small (<1%) but not negligible impact on stratospheric ozone. The paper is very well organized, referenced and written, and certainly of interest for the community. Therefore, I suggest the work to be accepted with minor revisions. In the attached document, I provide a couple of general comments that might help to enhance the work visibility, and a list of minor and/or technical comments to be addressed.