In view of the very positive assessment of your manuscript by two reviewers and your satisfactory response to their comments, I invite you to resubmit a revised version of your manuscript.

Both reviewers indicated that your manuscript requires only minor revisions. You responded adequately to their queries. Please upload the corrected manuscript for further processing.

Dear Rota,

in general I am happy with your revisions. I would like to suggest some re-wording for your abstract:

1) We identified density fraction locations of major metal phases and OM using.... could be: we identified the allocation of major metal phases and OM to density fractions....

2) These results led to a hypothesis which involves two distinct levels of organo-metal interaction – the formation of OM-rich, mixed metal phases having relatively fixed OM:metal stoichiometry and subsequent development of meso-density microaggregates via “gluing” action of these organo-metallic phases by entraining other organic and mineral particles such as phyllosilicate clays. - could be replaced by We hypothesised that there are two distict levels of organo-metal interations (1) OM-rich mixed metal phases with fixed OM:metal stoichiometry followed by (2) development by development of meso-density microaggregates via "gluing action of the OM-metallic phases with orther organic and mineral particles such as phyllosilicate clays.

3) I suggest that you explain in material and methods why not the same number of density fractions was separated from all soils

Dear Authors,

Thank you for chosing SOIL to publish your work. I would indeed like you to address the re-wording suggestions made by the Topical editor before we publish the manuscript.

best,
jo