Thank you for the revised version of the manuscript. While some effort has been made to address the original reviewer comments, unfortunately the most critical concerns have not been satisfactorily addressed in the revised manuscript. Specifically, I am referring to 1) the redundancy of the partitioning schemes (raised by original Referee #1) and 2) the validity of the scheme by Lohmann and Lammel (2004) which has been challenged in the literature, and has been raised by all three reviewers. Furthermore, the new Referee #3 also raises concerns about the novelty of the work as compared with what has already been done.

For a revised manuscript to be reconsidered, the authors need to do a better job in convincingly arguing for and describing the approaches they have used and the novelty of their work. Regarding the first point, indeed it seems redundant to use both saturation vapor pressures and partitioning coefficients in an additive manner as pointed out by Referee #1. If the authors disagree, convincing arguments on the grounds should be provided. Regarding the second point, it is not enough to state that an approach is "accepted and suitable" but instead provide a thorough argumentation on why the arguments made by Goss (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004) are invalid or can be neglected, along with (if indeed the approach is best available) a thorough discussion on the uncertainties associated with the chosen approach as suggested by the original Referee #2. Furthermore, the novelty of the work needs to be clearly justified and the previous work on the topic needs to be adequately discussed (see comments by Referee #3).

Besides these critical concerns, the new Referee #3 also provides some useful suggestions on potential improvements on the paper, which I recommend you consider if you wish to submit a revised manuscript, along with a ensuring the presentation of the manuscript to be as clear and transparent as possible.

If you think that you can sufficiently address these concerns, a revised manuscript can be reconsidered, but a further review will be necessary. Due to the significant time this would likely require, I also fully understand if you choose to submit the manuscript elsewhere.

I am sorry I cannot be more positive at this point,

best regards,

Ilona Riipinen

The authors have sufficiently accounted for most of the reviewer comments. However, there are still the following small revisions I would recommend the authors might want to consider:

1. Please keep qualitative statements without quantification (e.g. "small inconsistency", "negligible", "partly better agreement" etc.) to the minimum, i.e. quantify / relate such statements to relevant scales where possible.

2. Please go through the manuscript and make sure every abbreviation is defined when mentioned for the first time.

3. Please add a brief discussion on how these results compare to other similar work, as suggested by reviewer #3. In my view if does not matter whether the results are obtained from a different modeling framework, it is the comparison of the scientific insights that matter.