Hi guys

Thank you for your patience in responding to recent developments. I had to make sure that the reviewers comments had been addressed in an appropriate way.
I must thank you for the very detailed responses. Please do consider a number of
issues, before final publication, based on these reviews. I will accept the paper for publication once these have been addressed so there is no need for further external review:
- In figure 4 is there some data missing? Why is there no red points for any mass fractions other than the 1:0:1 mixture? The data is in Table 2 however?
- When you mention 'assuming no solubility' limitations please make it clear as to the use of experimental or predicted values.
- Can you add a brief discussion as to why you think the data from saturation of 0.2 is so different from others? Can you prescribe confidence from calibration data?
- The conclusions section is key of course. You will appreciate that our community can often take conclusions that make life a little easier and run with them without appropriate thought. I would request you add a line at the end of your paper that alludes to more work to extrapolate general atmospheric conclusions given the careful presentation of results from binary and ternary mixtures.
- Please increase the font size of legends and axis labels generally to enable easier reading

I am happy that the paper now has appropriately toned conclusions as to wider relevance.