The authors only state what they intend to do in order to adress the reviewers comments.
I would like to see a reply showing how the authors have adressed the concerns of the reviewers.

Please indicate in your answer how you adressed the comments and how the manuscript was changed in order to take the comments into acocunt.

The authors have reacted to the comments of the reviewers. There are two issues where I would like to see some more explanation/discussion:

1. comment by reviewer 2 to p 16249, l. 20.:
The question of the reviewer points towards the existence/non-existence of a QBO signal in the climatological data of oxidants used in the model and in how far this affects the model results. This question has not been answered.

2. comment by reviewer 2 to p. 1623 l. 16 and Fig. 9 (original manuscript).
I agree with the reviewer that the unit of mass transferred between gas phase and condensed phase should have time in the denominator, even when it is time averaged. It is unclear what exactly is shown in panels c to f. Please explain in more detail what the time aspect is.

I am still not convinced about the non-inclusion of possible QBO signatures in the oxididant fields. It is unclear if possible QBO cycles will be in-phase or out of phase with the precursor (SO2) fields. Depending on this we would either expect an amplification (as suggested by the authors) or a dampaning of the QBO signals in aerosols.

I suggest either to clearly mark this as a caveat and make some estimates of the possible size of the effect or to reason why the inclusion of more realistic oxidant fields is expected to lead to an amplification and not to a dampening.