Dear authors,

many thanks for responding to the referee comments and the short comment that also provided suggestions to the authors.

I appreciate and understand that this manuscript is prepared for the freshwater community and - as it becomes clear from the referee and short comments - this manuscript may serve as a valuable contribution to the field. It is however also very clear from the referee comments that there is a need to discuss and compare the SOP from Dickson et al in a revised manuscript. The authors mention that many freshwater scientists read biogeosciences, hence it is a good choice for such a technical note. Likewise, I would like to add that many marine (salt water) scientists also read this manuscript and may wonder why Dickson et al is not better discussed, hence a "reinvent the wheel" impression may arise. To avoid such confusion I agree with the authors that beside further discussion similarities and addition to the SOP text by Dickson et al adding "freshwater" or similar indicative term to the title will further help the readers. In the end many of the research methods we use in biogeochemical sciences may have been already implemented in a different field, hence adopting, improving and further developing them to improve our own discipline is an important step in science.

I also have to note that I was a bit disappointed by the authors response to the remaining referee comments. E.g. the authors note in response to referee#1 that "We will consider the reviewer’s comment on the necessity of contacting other groups to obtain more coupled NDIR and headspace data but felt that the pool of our own relevant data was sufficient to exemplify our point." - For me as editor it is not clear whether the authors will or will not include this suggestion. Maybe the authors were hoping for a response by the referee which is possible in the discussion forum, however, since the discussion is now closed I am now left puzzled how this comment will be treated. I suggest that the authors include additional data in their revised manuscript, OR clearly indicate why they have not done, so, i.e. provide evidence why their own data were sufficient.

Furthermore, minor comments were not answered but statements like "We will further add quantitative information about analytical errors and our NDIR method and will fix the other minor edits identified by the reviewer." are included in the reviewer response. From an editorial and reviewer perspective, a clear response what changes have been made in the manuscript are appreciated to get a better overview of which comments were considered and which not (after all, the referees may also disagree with a referees arguments). I therefore encourage the authors to indicate upon resubmission in their letter to the editor - parallel to the track changed manuscript - where changes have been made in response to both major and minor reviewer comments.

Based on all comments in the discussion I think the technical note may be considered for publication after major revisions, however, I urge the authors to discuss their results in comparison to Dickson et al and further clearly indicate in their revision where changes have been made in response to the remaining referee comments. After resubmission, I will ask the advice of the referees again.

Best regards
Peter Landschützer

Dear authors,

many thanks for submitting a revised version of your manuscript and for addressing the referees comments. The manuscript has substantially improved and I agree with both referees that the manuscript is now ready for publication subject to a few remaining points indicated by referee#2. Additionally, I noticed that two sections are numbered 2.1 in the text and I would further encourage the authors to review the manuscript for typos and grammatical errors before submitting the final version.

Best regards
Peter Landschützer