Dear Drs. Krall and Jähne, and co-authors,

Thank you for the submission of the revised version of your manuscript.
I think it it is almost ready for publication, also thanks to the comments by the referees. However, there are still some few issues, which I have listed below. First, some responses of you to the referees, and in particular what happened to those answers in the revised manuscript, is not clear to me. Below, I first copied the comment and then my response to it:

>Comment by referee #1
Separation of total gas transfer velocity into the components used in Eq. 10.
Reviewer’s comment: I don’t fully understand how the parameters defined on p.16 (ks600, kc600 and kr) were obtained from the measurements. Was kc600 determined using only data for SF6 and CF4 (and only SF6 in seawater), as mentioned on p.18 and are these results shown in Fig.7b? Were these then applied as fixed values in a two- parameter fit to data for all gases to obtain ks600 and kr in Fig. 7a,c?

EDITOR: The authors give a comprehensive answer to this, which clarifies a lot. However, it is not clear whether you added this to the manuscript; this would be quite helpful.

>Comment by referee #1
Missing bubble-induced gas exchange at moderately high wind speeds
Reviewer’s comment: The absence of any difference in transfer rate at moderately high wind speeds among gases covering a broad solubility range is an indication that something is wrong in the determination of kc or that the experimental design is unable to simulate mechanisms of gas transfer at these wind speeds at sea. This result is certainly contradicted by field evidence from several studies showing a generally linear increase in k for DMS at wind speeds of 10-20 m/s and a roughly quadratic increase for a less soluble gas like CO2 over the same interval.

EDITOR: The author’s answer is only partly satisfactory. The referee points to certain data, which seems to contradict the results of the present study. The authors only point to other results and do not address the issue as such. I think the authors should specifically address this. Possibly the authors could add a short discussion about this controversy.

Further comments by the editor:
In the revised manuscript, the title and abstract say wind speeds of up to 85 m/s were considered. However, in Table 1 the wind speed range is 14-80 m/s. Please clarify and/or correct.

The manuscript does not have a formal Discussion section. However, the results are discussed al right. Please add a Discussion section, or rename the Results section to Results and Discussion.

P26 Line 17-18 The authors write: “In the laboratory experiments reported here, bubbles did not significantly contribute to CO2 gas transfer even at the highest wind speeds.” However, CO2 was not a tracer used in the lab experiments (Table 2). Please explain what you mean and correct.

P28 Line 3 citing of website is double
P28 Line 5 The web citing is anomalous (please use doi) and the link does not work

P28 Line 24 citing of website is double. Please delete the second one
P28 Line 32 Measurement (typo)

P29 Line 12 web citing is doubled. The first link does not work, it should read: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2014.05.023 Please delete the second one.

P29 Line 23 Henry’s (typo)
P30 Line 18 Please add the University of the thesis

P31 Line 6 Please add the University of the thesis
P31 Line 10 This citation seems to be incomplete. Please add info
P31 Line 35-36 citing of website is double. The first link leads to the wrong book. The citation is erroneous. Please correct

P32 Line 2-3 citing of website is double. Please delete the second one.
P32 Line 5-6 citing of website is double

Thanks and best wishes
Mario Hoppema

The manuscript is accepted for publication in Ocean Science.
Before final submission, please correct the following:

P28, L5 The link is incorrect and does not work. Please provide a link with doi
Authors with full initials are: S.S. Alves, S.P. Orvalho, J.M.T. Vasconcelos