The paper was reviewed by two experts. They both agreed that the manuscript was of very good quality and appropriate for publication in BG. I share their assessment. Both reviewers also provided some very insightful comments to improve the clarity of the manuscript. I recommend the authors to address those comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. In addition to the comments provided by Dr. Thomas and Dr. Kozdon, I have a few additional minor suggestions. 1) Material and Methods – can you please divide section 2.1 to separate sampling location/procedure, sample preparation, and analytical procedure? Doing so will make Section 2 a little bit more reader friendly, in particular if a reader is coming back to the manuscript looking for specific information. 2) Repeatability – can you add information for B/Ca, Ba/Ca, and Al/Ca, as well? 3) Can you add some SEM pictures showing the internal structure of Nodosariata shell?

The authors addressed the comments they received during the first round of reviews in a satisfactory manner. However, in reading the manuscript, I realized that a few, additional minor revisions are needed before the manuscript can be accepted for publication in BG. Specifically:

Lines 71-73 – this sentence is not very clear. Any other studies about the isotopic composition of Nodosariata that can be cited here? Although the manuscript focuses on the element/Ca ratio, a more in-depth paragraph that reviews previous stable isotope studies conducted on these foraminifera (as suggested by Dr. Thomas) would make the introduction more complete.

Figure 1 (left) – please, make red dots a bit bigger. As of right now, they are a bit hard to see

Table 1 – in the figure caption, please specify the software used to calculate the various parameters of the CO2 system (even if the software is specified in the Material and Methods section of the manuscript)

Line 113 – can the authors also specify for how long they collected the background signal before/after ablation? Also, there is a mismatch between the laser spot size reported at line 113 and the one specified in Table 2.

Please, cite Tables 1 and 2 in the main text

Line 146 - what about Sr/Ca? and Ba/Ca?

Line 207 – can the authors include one additional SEM figure where they show the differences in the cross-section test structure between Nodosariata and Rotaliida? Not every reader (more so if students) might be familiar with the difference in the shell structure of these two groups of foraminifera. And considering that this is such an important part of the discussion, I think it would be worth to offer a visual representation of it.

Line 255 – References needed here.

Line 256 – Reference needed here – also I think that this point deserves a bit more discussion.

Finally, in this manuscript the authors present data for Sr/Ca, B/Ca, and Ba/Ca, but there is not much discussion about these. I understand that the main focus are the Mg/Ca and Na/Ca proxies, but a short discussion regarding the effect of environmental parameters on the other El/Ca ratio presented would be advisable.

The authors addressed the last suggestions provided in a satisfactory manner. The manuscript is now ready for publication in BG. I only have two technical corrections, which I would like to see incorporated in the text:
Line 127. Please, add repeatability based on RSDs of measurements of NFHS-2-NP for B, Al, and Ba.
Line 165: Table 2 should be Table 3. Add reference to Table 3 at line 170.