This version seems to address most of the concerns, however both reviewers raised the point about the lack of calibration of the CCN. The revised version does address this, but by extrapolating between the pressure-corrected values to get back to the concentrations at the nominal values. I have to say I find myself agreeing with the report by reviewer #2 in that it would have made more sense to simply repeat the closure exercise at the corrected supersaturations, thereby removing the possibility of inaccuracies creeping in through the interpolation process. It would also be more consistent with previous works in the literature attempting to model measured CCN behaviour.

If the authors have a reason for not doing this, it should be stated, along with providing more detail on the interpolation process. If not, repeating the calculations for the corrected values would give a more scientifically defensible result.

Thank you for addressing the major point and I hope you'll agree that while not changing the conclusions, this makes them more sound. The only remaining thing I would point out is that the reviewer report also identified a number of technical points (repeated below) that have not been addressed in this version. If these could be rectified, the paper should be ready for final publication.

p. 13, l. 17-18: “… than to aerosol mass concentration.” Please include the word “mass” here.
p. 15, l. 22: “hygroscopicity value” instead of “solubility value”
p. 16, l. 7-9: Please explain which kind of interpolation was performed here, a linear interpolation or a specific function?
Figures 1, 3, and 4: Please number each panel of the figures.
Figures 2c, 4d, 8: in the y-axis, could you please replace the comma by a decimal point.