Dear authors,
according to the comments of two anonymous reviewers in the interactive discussion, your manuscript needs substantial revisions before it can be reconsidered for publication. Both reviewers identify similar main shortcomings of your manuscript, which need special attention: (i) the description and discussion of the scientific background, framing and placement of your study in the available scientific knowledge (studies/references) needs to be substantial improved; (ii) your methods and approaches need to be described in much more detail, and (iii) the manuscript needs good English proof-read.
I ask you to revise your manuscript in accordance with all the comments and recommendations of each of the reviewers. When you have completed your revision, please submit your revised manuscript with the changes marked, and a detailed item-by-item response to each of the reviewer's comments.
Best regards
Heidi Kreibich

Dear Authors,
Your manuscript improved significantly. However, a sufficient discussion of your results is still missing. Please revise your manuscript and most importantly, integrate a thorough discussion of your results (e.g. how is your result related to other studies/methods, what is the reliability and accuracy of your results etc.). You need to put your results in context of the available scientific knowledge in this research field. Additionally, the reviewers provide some hints for more technical corrections, which are also necessary to undertake.
Best regards
Heidi Kreibich

Dear Authors,
Thank you very much again for the revision of your manuscript. It has again improved and is now ready for publication in NHESS. I thank you for choosing NHESS for the publication of your results.
Best regards
Heidi Kreibich