After a careful review of the authors’ response to the comments of the three reviewers, I consider that they have conveniently addressed the different comments by the three reviewers. The three reviewers were very positive with the manuscript, and the main issue that was addressed by the reviewer 1 (the validation in terms of the internal moisture budget of the method) has been addressed by the authors. I consider that the authors have made a great effort and provided detailed responses to the different reviewer comments so I do not think necessary a second round of reviews and I would recommend the publication of the manuscript as is.