Response and comments to the reviewer 1 1.

It was not any intention to validate the experimental data by comparing them with prediction methods, but to give an idea about phase behavior of both polymeric solution over the whole concentration range qualitatively. This fact which was not clear from the original text is now pointed out more explicitly. 2. The indirect measurement of pressure has nothing common with amount of condensate. Any trace of vapor phase cannot leave the system. This is a good and reliable experimental practice which has been approved and verified during >50 years. 3. The assumption concerning condensate is now included in the text. Description of experimental procedure was extended to avoid any doubts. 4. Discussion is included in manuscript dealing with addition of more amount of polymer as well as possibility of evaporation of solvent. 5. We agree that Tg and Tm are important polymeric properties, but not so important for mentioned class of polymers, and especially not for VLE measurement. Ultimate polymers were isolated after laboratory synthesis as described in reference [2] in order to determine monomer-to-polymer conversion, additive composition, density, pour point, flash point, viscosity and molar masses. Tg and Tm were not measured. Those polymers were also prepared in pilot plant and used as additives (flow improvers) for gas condensates and crude oil without any further treatment see references [1] Fuel 2007, 86 (1011), 14091416 and [2] Fuel 2008, 87 (1314), 29432950. In those papers, the practical use of polymers was emphasized.

Response and comments to the reviewer 2 1. The name of terpolymers was really misplaced both in text and Figure 2. Caption to the figure as well as the text were corrected. Thanks for discovery of this mistake. 2. This remark concerns the comparison experimental and predicted data. Obviously, the prediction was not used for validation of experiment, but to give an idea about qualitative phase behavior of both polymeric systems over the whole concentration range. Reviewers suggestion is included concerning the trend in activity vs. concentration dependence. This fact is now pointed out more explicitly which was not obvious from the original text.

List of changes Page 2, line 44 six lines were added to the first paragraph: It is assumed that vapor phase contains solvent only. The detailed testing and discussion concerning the error due to a little hold-up of solvent in vapor phase part of still was published in the previous paper.4 It was proved that for the similar type of systems, the absolute error in pressure is less than 0.1 kPa within the same concentration region. Moreover, the error in activity value is minimized due to the fact that partial pressure of solution is related to the experimental pressure of pure solvent determined using the equal procedure. Page 2, line 55 the last sentence was modified and four explanation lines were added: As soon as the measurement of a mixture was completed, additional amount of polymer was charged into the equilibrium still to increase polymer concentration in the system. An accidental loss of solvent during opening the apparatus can be neglected, since the addition into the still was realized after its cooling to room temperature and it took a few seconds only. Since overall composition of charged sample was determined gravimetrically, the error in composition can be estimated as 0.0001 in weight fraction. Page 4, line 42 name of polymer was corrected: Two terpolymers, namely ODA0.79AA0.11VP0.10 and ODA0.82St0.05AA0.13 in mixtures with toluene... Page 4, line 52 name of polymer was corrected: Figures 2 and 3 show the prediction of toluene activities in poly(ODA0.79AA0.11VP0.10) and... Page 4, line 57 end of the paragraph was modified and extended with explanation: Moreover, the dependence of solvent activity on concentration provides a qualitative description of particular system behavior over the whole concentration range including activity trends, since the prediction is based on group contributions, which comprises the structure of components involved. This is a way to avoid purely empirical background. It is necessary to point out, that prediction procedures were not used for validation of experimental data, but to give an idea about the trend in activity vs. concentration dependence.

Page 9, line 10 name of polymer and physical properties were corrected in caption to Fig. 2: Figure 2. Activity of toluene in poly(ODA0.79AA0.11VP0.10) [Mn = 15700 gmol-1; Mw = 36300 gmol-1] at 363.15 K. Page 11, line 40 name of polymer and physical properties were corrected in caption to Fig. 2: Figure 2. Activity of toluene in poly(ODA0.79AA0.11VP0.10) [Mn = 15700 gmol-1; Mw = 36300 gmol-1] at 363.15 K.