The referees suggest several revisions are needed in your manuscript, particularly with regard to structure, literature and some technical issues. Thankyou for your responses. Please now prepare and upload a revised manuscript.

The refereee finds that some further minor revisions and explanations are required to your manuscript. Please consider these carefully. In particular please detail limitations of your methods where this is required in scientifically critical way.

I look forward to receiving a further revised manuscript and authors response.

Dear authors, thankyou for your revisions and for contacting the companies involved.
I am still struggling with one point that was previously raised by the referee and that is related to the way in which you phrase your discussion of calibration. It implies that there is no error in your measurements, but this is rarely the case in science. You have not calibrated in the field and although you provide some graphical evidence of robustness, i think what is really needed is a *short statement* acknowledging that in this case there could be small errors introduced by your method - the reviewer previously suggested two papers to look at (note these were not authored by the reviewer) which you have not discussed in your response.
Please could you address this issue specifically in your manuscript. It requires no more than one or two sentences, but I find these very important to include.
So to summarise I think it is very important that you, as authors, critically appraise your methodology and any potential impacts (however small) on your results. You are best placed to make this assessment. This does not undermine your work, it strengthens it.

Thankyou for your revisions. However your response is rather short and terse and you provide no response to my comments.
It also seems that you have also not provided the sentence on possible limitations that I consider important to state, nor have you made an attempt to justify why you have not done so. You have instead just added to your claims that there is no possibility of error.
I do not understand your reluctance to address this referee comment and be self-critical and at least raise the possibility of this uncertainty/error, which is the scientific standard expected in HESS.
I do not see that you have used the Hausner papers to their full advantage. I do not consider it damaging to your findings or conclusions to mention this small issue, but instead highlights the rigour of your scientific approach.
I cannot recommend publication until you have addressed this issue sufficiently. I look forward to your response.

Thankyou for your revised manuscript which is now suitable for publication in HESS.