Dear Authors,
You have done a very good job of reacting to the issues raised by the second reviewer, making many revisions to improve this interesting paper. Some minor issues, indicated by a third adjudicating reviewer, still warrant more discussion (see below) but the paper will be accepted to ACP once these are addressed satisfactorily.
Minor outstanding issues
The rather large difference between modelled and observed MVK+MAC concentrations should be investigated in more detail. Could a higher deposition velocity for MAC+MVK improve the comparison between model and observations? A sensitivity calculation could help determining upper limits (e.g. by setting MVK+MAC dep. velocities to the theoretical maximum); this could perhaps shed some light on whether the difference is largely due to underestimated deposition or caused by other external factors.

minor comments
Add units to y label on all figures.
Figure 2: add y- labels for aesquiterpenes
Figure3, Figure 4: add units to y axis instead of the figure caption.

Best regards,
Jonathan

Dear Authors,
Thank-you for your swift and clear response to the questions raised by reviewer 3. You have addressed the new points raised and through your responses to all three reviewers the paper has improved considerably through the discussion phase. It is now acceptable to ACP, congratulations.
Jonathan