Dear dr. Cassarino:

Thank you for submitting this paper to Biogeosciences. Three referees have evaluated your paper and they identified the need for substantial revision. Based on reading your paper and your rebuttal, I believe that you will be able to deal with these. I therefore invite you to submit a revised version. Your revised paper will likely be evaluated by (a subset of) the referees before a final decision will be made.

Thank you, with best regards, Jack Middelburg, Associate Editor

Dear Dr. Cassarine:

Your revised version has been evaluated by two referees and they both recommend publication of this manuscript. I agree with their overall assessment and I therefore invite you to submit a revision that incorporates or addresses the remaining comments of one of the referees. This second revision will be accepted after inspection by me.

With best regards,

Jack Middelburg, Associate Editor BG

Dear Lucie:

I have read your revised version and I am happy to inform you that your paper is now accepted for publication in Biogeosciences pending a few technical corrections. Please correct these, if you agree, and upload a new version which will then be processed by the production department. Thank you very much for choosing BG as your outlet. I look forward seeing it in print.

With best regards, Jack Middelburg, Associate Editor

Minor corrections:
- P. 4, l.5, why a hard-return at the end?
- P.4, l. 24: please replace rpm with g-force. Rpm have no meaning without specification of radius, etc.
- P.5, l., 7: … during an interlaboratory evaluation/assessment/study?
- P.6, l. 15: The residual test, however, highlights…. (on the one and on the other hand always go together).
- P. 9, l. 21-22: The sentence as proposed…. (see equation 2) does not make sense. Something missing here
- P. 11, l., 14: published