Salinity Fronts in the South Atlantic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The language is fine and the main text is easy to read.

Author Response

Our Response to Review #1 is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is focused on structure and seasonal variability of sea surface salinity (SSS) in the Southern Atlantic with special emphasys on frontal zones. The authors analyze SMOS SSS measurements provided by the Barcelona Expert Center. This data is averaged during 2011-2019 and also the Belkin-O’Reilly algorithm is applied to study the frontal zones. Finally, the climatology of the main frontal zones in the study region are described including the open ocean and coastal (the Rio de la Plata plume, the Congo River plume, the Magellan Strait outflow, the Benguela upwelling).

The paper is very well designed and structured. It provides precise review of previous studies in the Introduction and decribes the climatology of the main frontal zones in the Results section. The obtained results mainly repeat those obtained in previous studies focused on specific regions (e.g., the Congo River plume, the Benguela upwelling), however, the research provides a nice generalization of all salinity fronts in the South Atlantic. As a result, the main weakness of the study consists in its descriptiveness, but the paper is too long already to be expanded.
Among specific comments, I recommend the authors to provide more justification that the diluted Congo River water spreads southward seasonally down to the Angola-Benguela Front at 16°S. This statement requires additional support from previous studies based on chemical or isotopic water properties, drifters, or numerical modelling. Finally, the authors use capital letter for "Plume" on pages 23-26, which should be changed to "plume".

In resume, the paper provides generalization of climatology of the main frontal zones in South Atlantic and its "review" style will be in demand by the scientific community. The paper could be published after minor revision.

Author Response

Our Response to Review #2 is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has offered detailed responses to my concerns, and I am content with their efforts. Hence, I am delighted to endorse the publication of this article.