The reviewers expressed three positive assessments of the paper and two of them provided also a quite detailed list of modifications to be introduced in the paper before it can be accepted for publication.
I recommend the authors to properly account for the reviewers' comments in the revised text, above all with reference to the following general remarks:
1) improve the readability and the description of the mathematical development, possibly including some parts in an appendix;
2) provide more details about the numerical aspects for the pratical application of the proposed solutions;
3) fully describe the physical hypotheses on which the equations are based and discuss their relevance for practical applications and thier limitations.

The reviewers gave a generally positive evalutation of the revised version. However, few minor changes are necessary before the paper can enter the production stage for the final publication.
In particular, besides the remark by one of the reviewers, a language revision is necessary. I provide a few suggestions in the non-public comments, as they are of minor scientific importance.
I agree with the Referee #2's comment to the original version about the use of the word "parsimonious". I would appreciate if the authors could consider again to avoid the use of this adjective.

I remain convinced that the term parsimonious is not used in the proper way; in fact parsimonious models are usually models which require few input parameters or simple approximations of the physical processes. Any analytical model is usually considered to be "parsimonious". However, this is a problem of minor importance from the scientific point of view.

Lines 364-365: please, check the sentence.