Dear Authors,

thank you for your detailed responses to referee's comments. I invite you to submit your new version of manuscript for a check by initial referees. However, before submission, I invite you to rephrase your sentences P15 L21 to P16 L2, which do not deliver a clear message.

Regards,

Sébastien

Dear Authors,

I went through your responses and new version of manucript. Altough I was seduced by your letter of rebbutal that has some panache, your modified version of manuscript is more disappointing. I would find relevant to insert in your article most of your discussions/arguments/auto-criticisms we find in your letter of rebbutal. That will valorize the work you've done in response to this provocating referee.

You did not remove from your discussion this poor sentence "Mineral physical protection for OC stabilization may be more important than previous understanding". This sentence can be easily replaced by somes sentences of your letter of rebbutal.

I would also ask you to correct your manuscript by a native english speaker. For example, the sentence " i) whether it is a general phenomenon that the minerals interact with OC are essentially SRO mineral nano particle and or poorly crystalline submicron size clay minerals," has no clear meaning.

Best regards,

Sébastien

Dear authors,

I am really happy by this new version of manuscript. The exchanges with referees were constructive and allowed you to obtain a sharp and incisive article that I hope will have a great success.

Regards,

Sébastien