Thank you for your detailed to the reviewers' substantive and detailed comments. This is a valuable dataset, however the reviewers have made many relevant suggestions to improve the manuscript. Many of these were addressed in your response quite well. At this stage, I encourage you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that includes these revisions and includes the clarifications provided in your response to the reviewers comments to improve the manuscript.

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript and addressing the reviewers' comments. Please address the following remaining technical corrections, and resubmit the manuscript.

Line 66-67: This sentence still makes no sense to me. What does it mean for D/O cycles to have “an affinity” to something? Please clarify.

You have stated in the methods that the 230Th/232Th ratio has been corrected with a certain value. Please provide a brief justification for the value chosen in the text.

You have cited 3 papers for methods, yet some of these papers differ in their methods used. Can you please clarify which parts of the method come from which papers, e.g., the chemical separation of U and Th is described in XX whereas the instrumental method follows the procedure described in XX, etc.