Dear Dr. Østerhus and co-authors,

I am generally satisfied with the revised manuscript. It is now almost ready for publication. There are some last technical issues that I found. Please take those into account when submitting the final version of your manuscript.

P2, L2 this enables us (instead of allows us)
P6, L10 water originally (blank)
P16, L2 delete: in principle
P16, L3-4 and is discussed in Sect. 4.1. (instead of: and deserves discussion (Sect. 4.1))

P16, L17 “is” instead of “was”
P16, L21-22 (Morison et al., 2007); this is further evidence that an imbalance of 0.1 Sv is unrealistic.

P19, L7-8 “We should therefore not expect a perfect balance between average AM-import and AM-export.” I do not agree with that. With all these caveats, an imbalance is possible but not a priori expected.

P20, L11 “For other purposes, this might not be the case, however.” It is not clear what is meant here. Please rephrase or explain.

The Conclusions section contains a lot of repetition from the previous sections, and not that much of new conclusions. Please check whether this can be reduced and changed.

References
Several cases: Deep-Sea Research (hyphen)
Andersen and Piccioni should be: Front. Mar. Sci., 3:76, doi: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00076

Change, I. P. o. C.: Climate Change 2013 – The Physical Science Basis … This is not the author; should be Stocker et al. Please correct, also in the text.

Hansen and Meincke: Deep-Sea Research (in full, as in all other references, for consistency)
Please check some more at other references.

With best wishes
Mario Hoppema