Dear authors,
In your responses, you are to my opinion seriously addressing the comments by the reviewers, and I ask you to include the proposed changes in the revised manuscript. The question to the editor on including a detailed flowchart I would answer by stating that it is not necessary, given the detailed proposed modifications and clarifications.
Success with the reviesion,
Peter Finke

Dear authors,
you adequately addressed the comments by the 2 reviews in the revised manuscript.
However, I received comments by Kristof Van Oost after the public discussion was finalized and I invite you to include their discussion in the final update of the manuscript.
These comments were:
1. It appears that the vertical redistribution of PU was not modeled but its effects are still in the measurements. Can you consider in the discussion (e.g. section 4.1) the possible effect of processes like bioturbation and colloid migration on the vertical distribution of PU?
2. Would the model, with a vertical discretization of 10 cm, not show significant numerical dispersion?
3. Does picking the 3 parameter sets for the inverse modelling (ktil, ktc and water ersosion strength) imply that the model is assumed to be perfect, and that all uncertainty (model misfit, via MEF) is attributed to parameter settings? Do you consider this a strong assumption?
Thanks for considering these final remarks.
Peter Finke

Dear authors,
Your reactions and revisions were clear and satisfactory to me and Kristof Van Oost. Therefore I congratulate you with acceptance of your manuscript to SOIL.
Thanks,
Peter Finke

Thanks considering SOIL for your best research!
Your paper is now ready for publication.

Kind regards

K Van Oost