Dear Lukas Kohl and co-authors,

two anonymous reviewers evaluated your MS and both seem quite positive about your work. I found your replies good, too and would this like to prepare a revised version of your MS for consideration after minor revisions. Please note that a new MS file needs to be uploaded (I noted that you uploaded your revised MS as an author comment in the discussion, and thought the revised version seems fine for the most part, note that it needs to be uploaded separately).
In addition to the reviewer comments, I would like you to clarify in the MS if differential material is used (ie standard alpha pinene). Also make sure that figures are well readable. While I found fig 3 easy to interpret, figs 4 and 5 are composed of rather thin lines , the colour scheme of which gets difficult to see, particularly if these are furhter shrunk. It is also not clear to me why the apparent methane concentrations of the different instruments are plotted on different scales.

Best wishes, Helge NIemann

In addition to the reviewer

Dear Lukas and co-author, thank you very much for your efforts and the thorough revisions. I would hereby like to accept the MS. With best wishes, Helge Niemann