Dear Dr. Lawson and co-authors,

Thank you for resubmitting and your response to the referees. Both referees asked for minor revisions and I think you satisfactorily answered all comments. Below my final comments are listed, which are mostly of technical nature.

Please write all units with negative exponents, e.g., m s-1

P1, L39 – P2, L1-2 „VOCs may also impact air quality and human health, through their role in particle and ozone formation, and direct impacts through exposure.” This sentence is grammatically incorrect (especially the last part does not seem to fit to the first), an anacoluthon. Please correct.

P2, L7 I think a short explanation of the CLAW hypothesis would be useful to the reader.

P2, L12 “to be ~17% of the DMS source” It is strange to give the percentage without having given earlier the magnitude of the DMS source.

P3, L21-22 “For oxygenated VOCs (OVOCs), whether the ocean acts as a source or a sink in a particular region depends on the concentration gradient between seawater and atmosphere (Carpenter et al., 2012).” This is self-evident. Please modify and add real info or delete.

P6, L9 I am not sure if every reader knows what SLPM stands for. Please explain.
P6, L38 pCO2 (2 as subscript)

P7, L2 variables instead of parameters? (a parameter is parameterized, right?)
P7, 7 §2.4 Many measured variables are listed. If these are used in the manuscript, the reader should know at least the precision, and if possible, the accuracy.

P9, L16 I suggest to not use MDL as an abbreviation, as this only occurs three times, and the reader possibly has to search for the meaning.

P12, L36 Please define the subscripts of DMSP. This has not been done before.
P12, L36 “The correlation of DMSa with DMSsw is clear …” Please be more specific.

P13, L10 Please define HMW
P13, L33-34 “from 30 to unity (Kettle 33 et al 2001), from 6-20 (Leck and Rodhe, 1991) and 2-5 (Kiene et al., 2017).” This info also occurs in the Intro. I don’t think it is needed here.

P13, L34 Is “As such” necessary?
P14 last paragraph: I am missing a judgement of which method produces the most reliable data. Differences of 20% are relatively high. I would expect some more ideas or indications about which is likely to deliver the best results. Even if the authors would not know for sure, it would be good to present the arguments for or against it. As it is now, the reader feels kind of lost after reading about these three methods with their particular results and hearing nothing about the reliability. Some few words about this should also be added to the Abstract.

References
P15, L4 Change: J Science to: Science
P15, L8 Author list is incorrect

P15, L10 Journal is missing: Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data 26, 521 (1997); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.556011

P15, L30 Ph.D. thesis, I presume
P15, L34 volume and pages missing

P15, L39 (30-49 °S) (change format of degrees)
P16, L28 35S-DMSP (format, superscript)

P16, L54 Too many symbols in authors list
P17, L28 Please correct authors list

P18, L6 “H3O+(H2O)0.1” (please correct format)
P18, L12 Author: Jöckel (correct name)

P19, L4 write standard deviation, not std dev
P19, L13 define CI here

P20, L4 standard not std
P20, Table 6 What is TpCO2? I do not know of any variable with this symbol. Shouldn’t this be just pCO2? please use subscript for 2

P20, Table 6 caption: Please add for which data and days these correlations apply.
P20, Table 6: Please add units to the variables and parameters. At no place in the manuscript units are given.
P20, Table 6 Please be consequent with using capitals or not. Usually names of algae or nutrients do not get a capital.

P23 caption Figure 2: please add what the lines represent
P25, Figure 4 Please define abbreviations in the panels, like WS, Irrad, Chl

P26, Figure 5 The notations y=0.07x and y=0.13x is not the full description of the lines. Please explain or complete.

Thank you and best wishes
Mario Hoppema