Dear Ms. Friese -

Thank you for uploading the author's response for this manuscript. Could you please upload a simple track-changes version, or email it to me? I find the version attached in the response file a bit confusing, as it is not directly showing the changes from the original manuscript commented on by the reviewers. Also, just a few small comments that perhaps you can deal with now:

1) ‘The standard deviation of a grain-size distributions is a measure of the sorting of the dust sample: the larger the standard deviation the weaker the sorting.’
I think reviewer #2 was interested in how you would define “well” sorted - what is the quantitative estimate of the size distribtuion associated with this term (compared to "poorly" sorted, for example)? Or does "good" simply refer to the lack of visitble multi-modality in the volume distribution?

2) For the atmospheric community focus of ACP. could “sorting” simply be replaced with “standard deviation of the size distribution”? Or, explicitly called out as new nomenclature “ we use the term “sorting” to refer to the standard deviation….”.

3) For the response:
"
We also agree that we should describe the modes of the offshore dust samples more in detail as we have described the fine mode of the Iwik samples. Therefore, we added a more detailed description in the result section. The reason for the fine mode which we observe in the CBi samples may be mainly due to different transport distances and source areas as has been already stated in the discussion part of the old manuscript on page 32, lines 699 -701.

Page 19, lines 467-468:
‘The eight bimodal grain size distributions of the CBi 11-12 time series were characterized by a variable coarse mode at ~ 25 to 35 μm and a variable fine mode at ~ 6 to 16 μm.’
"

6-16µm is not the fine mode. I would use "fine mode" only to refer to the very smallest mode that you resolve, below ~3 µm. The intermediate mode could be characterized as "the smaller coarse mode population" in contrast to the "larger coarse mode population", perhaps. Could you make sure that the usage you choose is consistent through the paper, please? This will help avoid confusion Further, Reviewer 2's comment called for even more information on the mid-size population, if it is possible for you to include it.