Dear Authors:
Thank you for your responses to the referees’ comments. Please consider my minor comments outlined below.

Please consider replacing the phrase “normal autoxidation” with “simple autoxidation” (or something similar) throughout the text. This change would make the main text consistent with the abstract and is perhaps a better representation of our current state of knowledge regarding the highly complex autoxidation process.

In the last paragraph of Sect. 3.1 please remind the reader that further details regarding the calculation of the HOMs concentration can found in the supplement. Additionally, please consider using wording other than “total molar yield.” Although there is wording acknowledging that sensitivity depends both on the ion chemistry used and on the specific molecule being detected, the use of “total molar yield” may confuse some readers. In the response to Referee #2 the term “apparent yield” was used. This may be a better choice for use in the manuscript as well.

I think it would be prudent to include a brief mention of the similar H/D behavior that was observed by Rissanen et al., (2015) . Something similar to what was included in the short author comment would be appropriate.

Sincerely,
Ellie Browne

Reference
Rissanen, M. P., Kurtén, T., Sipilä, M., Thornton, J. A., Kausiala, O., Garmash, O., Kjaergaard, H. G., Petäjä, T., Worsnop, D. R., Ehn, M. and Kulmala, M.: Effects of Chemical Complexity on the Autoxidation Mechanisms of Endocyclic Alkene Ozonolysis Products: From Methylcyclohexenes toward Understanding α-Pinene, J. Phys. Chem. A, 119(19), 4633–4650, doi:10.1021/jp510966g, 2015.