After a re-review of the revised MS submission, it is clear the paper is substantially improved over the initial submission, however, the new review has raised one technical issue remaining with this paper and I agree with the reviewer that this issue regarding the circularity of the comparison with the CRUST 1.0 model need to be addressed directly (ie the paper must make the reader fully aware that the same density model is used in both cases and make clear what the implications of this assumption are to the results presented). Else as the reviewer suggests the part of the paper suggesting agreement and validation of CRUST 1.0needs to be removed.
In addition the English in this paper is not acceptable for publication yet. Though I have been advised and assured by both the authors and editorial team that this issue will be rectified during the copy editing process, given the level of english grammar and style editing required I am somewhat uneasy about this process.

Dear authors,
please consider the comments made by the Topical Reviewer concerning the Crust1.0 model.
In addition, also make sure that an substantial improvement of the English language is achieved prior to final submission, so that the editorial team knows what is meant during copy editing and no content gets lost.
I'm looking forward seeing your paper published, CharLotte Krawczyk.