General

This is a comprehensive and really interesting measurement report (MR) on investigations of tropical clouds at Maido on the reunion Islands in 2019.  See my  second comment under 'details' for the approach.

I am not sure why this should be a 'measurement report' rather than a regular paper. Is that really the best choice ?

Other than this, I congratulate the authors for having untertaken this campaign and making the data available through this MR. I recommend acceptance subject to only minor amended discussions and some structural improvements according to my remarks below.

Details

Abstract: I feel the abstract is ok for a MR, giving an overview of the measurement results provided.

line 120 ff, section 2, paragraph 2.1: If I look at Figure 1, interestingly, the measurement station there are alingned along the main wid direction, so that possibly processing patters along the sequence ofs of stations fm Petite-Franc to the mobile lab to the Domaine des Orchidées sauvages to Hotel de Maido to Piste Omega and, finally, Maido observatory  will become observable. However, I cannot find this thought in this early section and I clearly suggest to add this here, early in the manuscript.

Doesn't this natural set-up ask for checking the results on wether multiphase processing of gaes and particles can be observed ? Or is this beyond th scope of an MR `? But the authors are motivating their measurements here with the points (1) to (3), so maybe such a thought like 'processing along a Lagrange-typ trajectory' could be added ?

In the section 2.2. to 2.6 the above-mentioned measurement stations or observatories are described in detail with a a comprehensive description if the measurements possibilities and their sampling frequencies.

l 304: Are these average wind roses consistent with the arrow in Figure 1 which shows like north-west as the main wind direction ? If the stations are all subject to incoming westerly winds (during daytime), one would expect that they are all measuring the same. Then, a processing sequence would be difficult to obtain. In the time series where data were obtained, is there periodes when NW in flow prevailed ? Can you identify these periods ?

l268 ff, section 3.1: Foolwing my above comment: Is it the results of this section that March 16th and April 1st were clearly the best periods where a sequential passing of the station was identified ? Could you add a bit more in the present paper rather than mainly refering to Rocco et al (2022) ?

It would be great if this argumentation would be accessable in the MR alone. Re that Rocco et al Figure: Wouldn't March 31st be nearly a s good as April 1 ? What is the selection parameter ?

l 351: It is written that ...this simulation was typical and highlighted the good connection between the observation sites." Is a deeper analysis foreseen here ? Can the connection be proven also by gas phase or particle phase constituents' measurements ?

l 389: The VOC measurement contain a wealth of data and the authors are congratulated to have mesured this dataset. What about OVOC ? Are thes a separate dataset ? In line 404 Rocco at al (2020) is referenced which is on HCHO, which is a carbonyl - what about other carbonyl compounds ? Maybe VOCs and  OVOC can be treated separately. The OVOC would be very important to follow VOC oxidation and they also link the gas phase oxidations to particle phase compositions.

l453: 'Aerosol': Maybe here subsections for the physical measurements and chemical aerosol particle characterisation can be introducted ?

l534 ff: The sections of Cloudwater and Biological systems also contain a wealth of data. It would be great to clearly state what has been analysed and if a deeper analysis is under prepearation and for what exactly . This way, the present MR could guide the reader for future evaluations which use the campaign data but which are not in the scope of this present MR.