We thank the Referee for very detailed and helpful comments, which we address in details below.1. There are far too many data tables and figures that are irrelevant to the structure of the results and discussion. Most can be replaced with a single sentence. These detract from the quality of the observations and should be relocated to a Supporting Information document. These are noted in detail below.Asked figures and tables were moved to Supporting Material.2. The Authors claim that they are reporting the longest time series of amines measurements to date, but the measurements are short-duration periods made in different C1
ACPD
Interactive commentPrinter-friendly version Discussion paper months. A time series implies continuous data collection and the authors should revise the manuscript to be clear that they are reporting eight weeks of observations from different months over the course of a year from the same observation site. Further to this point, the sampling strategy reported and the findings discussed in the paper are all weakened because of the intermittent nature of these observations. The limitations of the dataset need to be presented clearly. Figure 7 is the only depiction of the full measurement time series and it appears that even within each observation period that there are gaps in the data which are not clearly explained. How can the Authors justify their conclusions regarding monthly/seasonal trends if they do not measure continuously throughout each?Number of data points in each month was added to Table 4. We also added clarification in Experimental section that due to instrumental problems good quality data was captured only 8 weeks, although we measured continuously. Even though measurements cover only 8 weeks, to our best knowledge, this is still largest data set of amine concentrations.3. The manuscript does not appear to have a clear purpose or objective. There are several discussions made throughout the manuscript that are not joined in a clear narrative, the final paragraph of the introduction for example, which confuses the meaning and scientific contribution of the findings.a. The Authors present an advancement in atmospheric amine measurement capabilities through the use of an ion chromatography-mass spectrometry system, but do not clearly demonstrate the necessary performance metrics (e.g. a sample chromatogram demonstrating the ability to speciate the suite of analytes likely to be encountered in the atmosphere). The data then presented in the tables and figures is still largely below the instrument detection limits (e.g. Table 4), so is this improvement really meeting the observational needs of the research community?We have added chromatogram to Supplement Material. It would be great to have better C2
ACPD
Interactive commentPrinter-friendly version Discussion paper time resolution and lower detection limits, but this is the best which is possible at the moment. Direct mass spectrometric methods have lower detection limits and higher time resolution, but data is not species spec...