Dear Author
I have carefully read your responses to the reviewers comments, which were overall minor, and your proposed revisions. Generally I found them satisfying, except the part dealing with the changes in the depth-age scale compared to the previously published one by Opel et al. (2013). I think here you have to give more details to make clear how the age-depth scale was developed (which tie points did you use, how were they connected, using an exponential fit or glacier flow model etc.). From Figure S2 it seems to me that even the upper 411 m were changed, in contrast to what was stated in the MS. I get about 700 AD instead of 900 AD at 411 m. Also there is a suspicious kink in the age-depth relation at 510 m and below that a linear relationship without any further thinning, which is unexpected for a glacier.

In the response to reviewer 3 you wrote 1 ppb = 0.001 ng/l. This is should read: 1 ppb = 1000 ng/l. Please correct for the revised version.

The color scheme you use for North Atlantic Drift Ice and Dongge Cave in Fig. 8 is counter-intuitive. I would swap red and blue colors.

Please prepare the revised version of the manuscript considering my comments.

Dear Author
I am fully satisfied with your revisions and I am glad that my comment on the dating motivated you to re-examine the time-scale to come up with a more robust version. Overall I am convinced that your study is a very valuable contribution to improve our understanding of biomass burning in the past. In addition, the introduction of a novel method for molecular biomass burning tracers will certainly serve the ice core community and I am pleased to recommend the manuscript for publication.