Dear authors,

Thank you for your submission of your revised manuscript. Based on the original reviews and my reading of your revised paper together with your responses to reviewer comments, I am pleased to accept your study for publication in AMT pending a small number of technical corrections.

These corrections (below) are minor points which I feel will improve the precision/readability of the text in a few places, and I was not sure whether the production office would catch them as they mainly involve specialist language.

Optional: I suggest changing variable subscripts "scatt" to "scat" instead. This is a slightly briefer common abbreviation, and in general shorter subscripts are a little more readable. But I leave this change up to your preference.

Line 164: please add a reference to where the quality flag index is defined (I assume this is one of the previously-cited algorithm papers, but please add an additional citation to the relevant paper here).

Line 601: "lower" wavelengths should be changed to "shorter" wavelengths

Line 659: The start of this sentence could use a little rewording. I suggest: "Our results advance the classification of Mediterranean aerosols, and"

Line 663: "would" should be changed to "should".

References: Citations to C. A. Pope are formatted incorrectly. The author's name is "C. A. Pope" and he is the third of that name. The references should appear as e.g. "Pope et al" and not "Pope III et al". Please correct this.

You should receive with this message a link to upload your final files, once corrections have been made. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best wishes,

Andrew