CO Editor

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Re-Review (page and line numbers refer to the marked up version of the revised manuscript):

Overall, the authors have adequately addressed my comments and suggestions. I recommend the manuscript be published in ACP. However, there are just a few minor points that should be addressed before final publication:

to point 7: to justify this procedure, please add the reference Brown et al to the manuscript.

to point 9: The authors removed main parts of the comparison to EU and WHO guidelines. Although it sounds picky, please add a sentence with the required data coverage for each guideline in %, and where you state that your data set does not reach these coverages.

to point 11: This point was well explained by the authors. Please add the information you give here to the manuscript (if you prefer, in a shorter form) with the 2 references.

to point 16: Similar to point 11, please add your explanations in short form to the manuscript, which will also help the reader to understand the whole strategy of your PMF data pretreatments.

Technical corrections:

Page 6, line 231: Use the plural of metropolis, there are several options.

Page 9, line 292: Between "higher" and "contribution" is a space too much.

Figure 9a: Write the factors in the figure caption in opposite order because RD is factor 1, IN is factor 2 etc.

Interactive discussion

Peer-review completion