Dear Lisa & Brice

thank you for submitting your responses to the referees' comments, which you addressed adequately. For a final evaluation of your manuscript for potential publication in TC I would like to receive your document with track changes, e.g. latexdiff or alike.

Thanks you & best regards,
Olaf

Dear Lisa & Brice,

thank you submitting your revised manuscript. After consultation with a fellow Co-Editor in Chief we come to the conclusion that you addressed all comments of the referees, that your manuscript is scientifically sound, but unfortunately it does not comply with the level of writing and typesetting we require for TC before the ms could be accepted for publication. I attach an annotated pdf where you find a number of remarks. I ask you and your co-authors to give this manuscript a proper proofreading and follow the style guidelines for TC. Neither the editors nor the editorial office are supposed to correct the manuscript in this respect at this stage of the publication process on behalf of the authors. Especially the more senior scientists among the coauthors should provide more guidance.

You'll find a few explicit remarks below for easier refrence, but check all annotations in the attached pdf. Please thoroughly revise the manuscript accordingly.

Regards,
Olaf

Olaf Eisen
Co-Editor in Chief The Cryosphere


Abstract: It starts awkward. You do not mention when and how you obtained a CTD. Rewrite.

Conclusions: Rewrite the last paragraph of the conclusions. "This is a challenging environment ... is inconcise. "Recent studies ..." would require references. A suggestion would be
"Despite the available documentation of instrument failure during long-term exposure to frazil ice slurry we showed that it is possible to obtain synoptic inventories of ice production".

A number of tables are not correctly set, with inappropriate line breaks. Fix.
Several figures have overlapping values on the x-axes. Fix.
Section 1.2 introduces the motivation. But there is not section 1.1. So it is redundent.
Some sections start with 2, other with 4.0. This is inconsistent. Please follow our style guide.
You refer to numerous supplemental material. Please make sure it is really needed and check our guidelines on "Supplements" on
https://www.the-cryosphere.net/for_authors/manuscript_preparation.html
I therefore did not check the supplement thoroughly at this time.

degree C is sometimes with °, sometimes with o (e.g. l255). Use °C throughout.

l363: using 1% of a temperature is meaningless in the Celsius scale.

Mathematical variables: Please use a consistent set of symbols for variables, including the same super- and subscripts. For instance, I suggest to change
Conc_{ice}^{temp} to C_{ice)^T
Mass_{ice}^S to M_{ice}^S
Currently, you mix ^S and ^{salt}. Using a long name (e.g. Conc or Mass) for a variable is numerical style.
Use r_{ice} or alike instead of "production rate" in eqn. (13).

Unify usage of cm d^{-1} vs. cm day^{-1}.

Dear authors,
I can now accept your paper for publication in TC.
During the upcoming final copyediting/typesetting phase, please correct the variable in line 168 of the supplement.
Regards,
Olaf Eisen