This revision contains numerous weaknesses (English, inconsistencies, etc, see examples in the attached file), such that it is not possible to forward these documents to the referees. Therefore I return them to the authors with a request to improve their quality before I can send them to the referees.

As also noted by the referees the paper has improved substantially, however, there is still more to be done (hence major revison with additional review by the referees)
Referee 2 gives some hints, please consider them with the exception mentioned below; further comments are given in the following:
- I agree that the paper lists observations on similarities and differences in the various fractions, however, more needs to be said what is new, what is expected, and what is in contrast to expectations. You should also give recommendations for future research with such a setup, and list the advantages and disadvantages.

- Then, most importantly, there are still a lot of unclear sentences (e.g. L 477-481), or unsupported statements (e.g. L 483), which make it impossible to accept the paper at the current stage.

- Please check the attached annotated manuscript; these comments are just examples and not meant to be complete.

- In contrast what Referee 2 suggested you are fine with using L as symbol for liter; according to a recent decision by the ACP Editorial board the symbol L will be used for liter in all future publications, to avoid confusion with the capital I.

- Concerning the number of figures I leave this up to the authors: Please decide what you consider appropriate number of figures, based on the suggestion of Referee 2 in terms of readability of the paper.

The paper has substantially improved and can be published after taking care of the issues in the attached file (without further review by the editor)