Dear Authors
Thank-you for your revised manuscript with responses to the reviewer comments. I am now asking for some “technical corrections” as under “Detailed comments” below. Then you should upload your amended manuscript to the Copernicus Editorial system (no more intervention by me). There will be copy editing and you should check that the result keeps the meaning that you intended. Thank-you for publishing in Ocean Science.
Yours sincerely
John Huthnance (Editor)

Detailed comments.
Model (non-) availability. I think you should state (probably somewhere near “Data Availability” or in “Acknowledgements”) what you can from your responses to reviewer 2 about the model code.
Line 234. Equation should be (1b)?
Section 2.3. Your response to Referee 2 “line 251” is a bit surprising but on the other hand sales of stern tube oil may not relate well to leakage, e.g. perhaps it should be replaced at routine intervals? I think you should put some brief form of response to this comment in the final text.
Line 276. Please check punctuation, especially after “US EPA, 2011b”. MARINTEK 2006 is not in references.
Line 344. Omit “provide”?
Lines 353-358, 366, 367. I suggest continuing to use italics for the paint classes.
Line 366. Omit final “the”.
Line 451. Either duplication or word missing.
Table 7, row three of values, Cu concentration: different font.
Line 490. Preferably “litres” (spelling) and better to align left only.
Line 549. Preferably “litres” (spelling)
Lines 574, 580, 598 (and elsewhere). Preferably “metres” (spelling).
Line 688. “. . annual leaching of AFP along the concentrated shipping lines . .”?
Line 714. “5 km2” should have superscript “2”.