The manuscript presents a unique dataset on ice-nucleating particle (INP) concentrations obtained using a UAV-based mobile filter sampler during the Pallas Cloud Experiment 2022. The dataset is particularly valuable as INP data at different altitudes, especially at the level of low-level clouds, remain sparse, making this dataset a useful contribution for process understanding, comparison with other regions or datasets, or model validation. The methods and materials are well described. Not all details are provided in this publication but can be found in the referenced complementary work (Böhmländer et al., 2024a). The dataset is accessible, complete, and of high quality, with error estimates and uncertainties properly addressed. Some clarifications regarding background subtraction, dilution handling, and data representation would improve usability, but overall, the dataset and data descriptor is well-structured and appropriate for publication.

Some minor points of clarification to enhance transparency and reusability include:

• Line 46: Consider specifying the altitude range or average altitude of the UAV measurements.
• Line 52: Consider providing the flow rate used during sampling.
• Line 73: The INP concentrations in the data files are reported in m⁻³ but shown in std l^-1 in the manuscript; while the unit information is provided in the netcdf file, adding a unit reference in the metadata or a table with units would improve clarity. Also, could you clarify whether any correction was applied for the water background or handling blank?
• Lines 74-75: It appears that dilution information is simply removed rather than averaged, and that you typically used two dilutions - could you confirm if this is correct?
• Line 90: When plotting the handling blank data, two fraction frozen curves appear, while only one is shown in Figure 5 – could you explain this discrepancy?
• Some INP spectra contain only a few data points, likely due to the described data quality filtering but some further clarification could be beneficial.

References:

Böhmländer, A. J., Lacher, L., Brus, D., Doulgeris, K.-M., Brasseur, Z., Boyer, M., Kuula, J., Leisner, T., and Möhler, O.: A novel

aerosol filter sampler for measuring the vertical distribution of ice-nucleating particles via fixed-wing uncrewed aerial vehicles,

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-120, 2024a

The manuscript presents a novel dataset on ice-nucleating particle (INP) concentrations obtained during the Pallas Cloud Experiment (PaCE) 2022 in Finnish Lapland. 

The study provides valuable altitude-based INP concentration data, and the dataset uniqueness contributes to understanding the INP variability in the region and model evaluation.

The study is scientifically relevant, and the methodology is well described and designed. The data are open, of high quality, and supported by a careful uncertainties assessment.

Some minor clarifications may improve the quality of the manuscript, but it is absolutely appropriate for publication.

The main points of clarification include:

Line 5: Although the meaning of INP is clear throughout the manuscript, consider ti specify the acronym also in the abstract.

Lines 8-9: The abstract could be improved including some numerical values, also as range, mostly when mentions the variability of INP concentrations in time and altitude.

Lines 18-19: The sentence is a bit unclear, mostly the last part. Vertical resolution may be misleading, consider to reword this part.

Lines 36-37: Despite, Finnish Lapland is well-known some additional information could be extrmely valuable, for instance a small map of the area with the observation site. Or otherwise a short sentence that may help readers to indentify the location (e.g. coordinates).

Lines 46: Which is the altitude of the UAV measurements?

Lines 74-75: What do you mean for "homogenized dataset"? Consider to better clarify what you mean, being "homogenized" rather misleading.

Lines 105-111: In conclusions, a specific guidance for future research directions is not so clear. Seems to be better explained in the abstract than in conclusions.