Dear Dr. Liu and co-authors,

The referee is satisfied with your response, but would like to see your response back in the manuscript. I also think that treating the questions by the referees in the manuscript will improve the meaning of the manuscript and bring more clarity for the reader.

So please submit a new (near final) version of your manuscript incorporating and describing the comments by the referees and your answers to that.

With best wishes
Mario Hoppema

Dear Prof. Yang and co-authors,

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript. It is now accepted for publication in Ocean Science, provided the last few technical comments are accounted for - see below.

L223-226 I suggest to change this to:
The error of these measurements (in triplicate) was in the range of 8-25%. As the measuring scheme is possibly not optimal yet, we may repeat the measurements with purge flow rates between 350 and 450 mL per minute, especially around 400 mL/min. It might be possible to obtain even better results with fine tuning.

L251 minutes (not: min)
L266 used (not: design)

L279-284 I think this paragraph would fit better at the beginning of this sub-section, or even in the Introduction.

L351 I suggest to change to: During the photolysis of NO2 , mainly NO and OH are produced.

L355- 356 I do not understand what is meant with this: “ thus, the authentic NO resulted from NO2-photolysis was underestimated.” Please modify.

L462 Fehsenfeld
In Table 1: Zafiriou

With best wishes
Mario Hoppema