Dear Authors
Thank-you again for your revised submission. I have had a referee's report on the revised version and they are not asking for any changes. So the following "technical corrections" are just what I sent in my e-mail of 17th February. Your final version will be copy-edited and you should check afterwards that your intended meaning is retained.

Page 4
Line 10. Omit “following”
Lines 22, 23. “0.3 km x 0.3 km”, “3 x 3”

Page 6 line 33. “From” not “Since”?

Page 7
Line 2. “corresponded”
Line 13. “preventing” not “avoided”

Page 7 lines 29-30 and page 8 lines 5-6. There seems to be some duplication here – merge? Also “reset” is strange – perhaps “retreat”?

Page 8
Line 13. Either “between 0 and 3” or omit “between”.
Line 20. Better “weak” than “low” for wind.

Page 9
Line 6. Please add explanation/reference for “6 g/kg” as in your reply to Review 1.
Line 20. I don’t understand “flat” here.

Page 10
Line 2. “10% from the discharge depth” is not clear. “of” not “from”? Do you mean that the edge is where the plume depth is 10% of the depth occupied by the river discharge?
Line 8. “as well as bulge mean depth” suggests that both the bulge radius and the bulge mean depth increase with decreasing I; do you mean this?
Lines 24-25. If “the water in the bulge was mixed deeper” only occasionally when “bulge depth even increased” then these two sentences should be joined together.