A nicely written paper evaluating PTFs for Irish soils for the estimation of bulk density (pb) per horizon type.
The Editor accepts the paper based on the response to the reviewers comments.

The Editor suggest that the following short technical issues are addressed to improve readability and reproducibility:
1) How have the field locations of the 246 pits been selected ? How have the locations of the three replicates been chosen (based on 20m cm distance in between- next to each other)?
2) Do the authors need to add more acknowledgements to the people which helped them out with that field work ?
3) P1044L9 space missing at '22 pedotransfer function'
4) P1045 L24 – Results of the inter-laboratory exercise are missing in the results and discussion section – how does the 10 % of the samples perform?
5) P1048L21-24 Can the authors be please specific what has been performed here in R/Kriging/Spatial analyst. Currently another researcher can not reproduce the research based on the description given there. Which parameters for Universal Kriging? Along the same lines comes the question where the data for masking used in the map figure (e.g. lakes, marshland) are coming from.
6) Personally the editor believes the work would have gained if the uncertainty of the PTFs as well of the maps would have been described in detail (e.g. 95%CI) especially as the authors apply DSM methodologies (e.g. add lines for the CI in Figure P1071 and in text). Additionally the aspect of application of PTFs per horizon may lead to conflicts of consistency across the profile/map which could be discussed in the text.

Dear authors, I am glad to communicate that your manuscript will be accepted for publication in SOIL after correct some technical issues. Please follow every of technical corrections indicated by the Topical Editor.

Thanks for consider SOIL for your publication.

Jorge