Dear Guilhem Horeau et al.,
this is an interesting piece of work and agree in many points to the comments of the reviewers. Thanks for your detailed response to the reviewer's comments. A main issue for us reader is to evaluate your approach, so as suggested by the reviewers, this can be done best by comparing it directly to existing data sets and the approach published by Drost et al. Therefore, I would like you to modify your ms accordingly. Re-evaluate your approach by direct comparison to other methods/data sets and implement your comments on the other critical points mentioned in the reviews (as you did in your comments on the reviews). I would appreciate a discussion based on a realistic evaluation. It would be ideal for adding information of trace element data to this approach... You should also mention that you not propagated systematic uncertainties and I understood that between sample and reference standard measurements, the ablation cell needs to be open.
I am looking forward to receiving your revised version of the ms
All the best
Axel Gerdes

Dear Guilhem Hoareau et al.,
I agree with both reviewers that the ms has improved significantly and is now (almost) ready for publication. There are a few very minor corrections (mainly technical) suggested by the reviewers and I would ask you to modify them before I finally can approve the acceptance of the paper.
Best
Axel Gerdes

All fine with me. Thanks, Axel

Dear Dr. Hoareau
thanks for submitting a revised and improved version of you manuscript. It is now acceptable for publication pending some technical corrections.
This is a method paper thus the methods need to be described clearly and the data be presented properly. The latter is a bit of of a problem. Please report errors with 2 (rarely three significant digits, 4 are definitely over the top an unreasonable.). Then report the data with the enough and not more digits so the error matches the digits reported for the data. In the figures the data is often given with 3 decimal places but the error is reported for the third to fifth decimal place. This does not make sense. Report the data and errors so the errors refer to the decimal reported for the data. In the same figure you use for initial Pb either Pb0 or 207Pb/206Pb)0. Please use one way of presenting this value and use it then throughout the paper.
The word "believe" has not place in a scientific paper.