Unusual Enhancement of the Optical Depth on the Continental Shelf Depth Latitudinal Variation in the Stratospheric Polar Vortex
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The title is catchy and reduces the word count in the article title.
The literature review should be done extensively with the presentation of earlier observations.
Materials and methods are described lucidly and attractively, presenting several fundamental equations and derived parameters.
Figure 3 is not presented hence and is adequately recommended for modification.
The results presented in the figures are inconsistent with those described in the text.
Figures 8 and 10, the discussion is not effectively presented.
Figures 11-14, why the authors have focused on deriving the results for the 2011. What about the latest changes observed in Antartica ozone concentrations.
What do you mean by optical depth coefficient.
Extract optical depth coefficients for the recent year also.
What is the importance of figures 19 and 20.
The discussions are in vogue in several instances and need refinement for the consistency of obtained results and discussion presented. Hence authors should focus on this for modifications.
There are too many figures, and some of them are suggested to move supplementary material
More statistics should be presented.
There are so many results. But the connectivity between one figure and other is missing. All the results are individual presented based on the characteristics to discuss.
At few instances, English grammatical errors need to be corrected with the suggestions from native person of English language or else take assistance from the English editing services/consultancy for the improvement of English language.
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We greatly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful comments have considerably strengthened the quality of our work.
We have carefully considered each of your suggestions and have made appropriate modifications to the manuscript where necessary. We believe these changes have significantly improved the clarity, depth, and rigor of our paper. For detailed responses to each point, please refer to the specific amendments outlined within the manuscript.
Should there be further questions or suggestions, we are fully prepared to address them in order to enhance the quality of our work even more.
Thank you once again for your invaluable input and guidance.
Best regards,
ZiQiang Xu
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Line15: QDOS was changed to QDOAS, the same behind. Please check it carefully.
Line30: Differential optical absorption spectrometer was changed to differential optical absorption spectroscopy. The latter will also be modified. Please check it carefully.
Line143: The name of the institution is the Belgian Royal Institute for Space and Aeronomy. Please check it carefully.
Line157: Absorbing gases not only Ozone. The absorption cross section contains many gases.
Line158: oblique column was changed to slant column.
Line174: In the figure, O3223 is changed to O3(223K), Different temperature, different absorption cross section.
Line180: The picture in Figure 3 is abnormally reversed. Please check it carefully.
Line410: Quoted image URL should be added.
The manuscript is written fairly well with some minor errors in sentence structure, spelling and word choice that can be rectified easily with a thorough revision of the text.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We greatly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful comments have considerably strengthened the quality of our work.
We have carefully considered each of your suggestions and have made appropriate modifications to the manuscript where necessary. We believe these changes have significantly improved the clarity, depth, and rigor of our paper. For detailed responses to each point, please refer to the specific amendments outlined within the manuscript.
Should there be further questions or suggestions, we are fully prepared to address them in order to enhance the quality of our work even more.
Thank you once again for your invaluable input and guidance.
Best regards,
ZiQiang Xu
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In the paper, SCIAMACHY data for 2011 are analyzed with comparison to 2010. Main results are related to the optical depth coefficients, but their physical meaning is not fully understood from this version of the manuscript. Nonetheless, the series of plots (including Figs. 11-15, 17) looks potentially interesting, but their interpretation should be carefully verified. Many assumptions concern variations of the continental shelf with mentioning some changes in gravity (L. 458), but these items are not studied in the work, so their use for conclusions is not supported by the necessary logical arguments. In addition, the text contains many errors and doubtful points, which are described in the attached file. Particularly, ozone column in Figs 16, 18 is too low for any clear interpretation.
Respectively, I propose major revision of the current version of the manuscript. The results may be scientifically valuable, but it is very difficult to argue using the available text. Therefore, scientific achievements can be evaluated, if they are verified and logically explained with correcting main errors.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The quality of English is at a good level with only some errors. Additional attention should be paid to the spelling of abbreviations. There are some questions about the structure of the text (including the two first paragraphs of Section 3), but this point predominantly relates to the scientific, not the language field.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We greatly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful comments have considerably strengthened the quality of our work.
We have carefully considered each of your suggestions and have made appropriate modifications to the manuscript where necessary. We believe these changes have significantly improved the clarity, depth, and rigor of our paper. For detailed responses to each point, please refer to the specific amendments outlined within the manuscript.
Should there be further questions or suggestions, we are fully prepared to address them in order to enhance the quality of our work even more.
Thank you once again for your invaluable input and guidance.
Best regards,
ZiQiang Xu
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have improved the work based on the reviewers suggestions and implemented all correction raised by the reviewers in their revised paper. Hence, the paper can be accepted in its present form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I hope this letter finds you in good health and spirits. I would like to extend my deepest gratitude for your encouraging feedback on my manuscript. It is truly heartening to know that you recognize and appreciate the efforts put into the research and the contributions made in the paper.
Please rest assured that any suggestions or recommendations you've made will be carefully considered, ensuring that the final version of the paper is of the highest quality.
Once again, thank you for your kind words and the time you have invested in reviewing the manuscript. It has been an honour to receive feedback from someone of your expertise.
Warm regards,
ZiQiang Xu
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have done a lot of work, correcting many errors and dubious statements. Some questions on the physical meaning of the results and the correctness of certain phrases still remain, but their number is much smaller in compared to the previous version. I now believe it possible to make the changes as minor revision. I hope the final text will be much more comprehensible for readers than the initial one.
My remarks are collected in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Only a few minor errors were noticed after the corrections. In any case, the manuscript has not any noticeable problems with the quality of English.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to express my sincere appreciation for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing my manuscript. Your insightful comments and suggestions have been invaluable in refining and enhancing the quality of the work.
I have taken your comments to heart and have made the necessary revisions to address the concerns raised. I believe these changes have elevated the quality of the manuscript and brought clarity to the arguments presented.
Once again, thank you for your invaluable contribution to this process. I look forward to potentially benefiting from your expertise again in the future.
Warm regards,
ZiQiang Xu
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
