Dear authors,

I have received to reviews by the original reviewers. Both of them are satisfied with your scientific revision; however, one of them pointed out a few technical issues that should be corrected (see list below). After this, I will be happy to accept your manuscript for publication.

Best regards,
Barbara

-----------------------------------------

1. Some of the responses on the pdf at the bottom of the page are cut off. Also some of the citations in the response do not show up in the bibliography.

2. Comment 7: I do not think Hayes, 2015 states a high fraction of organic aerosol attributed to biogenic SOA in Pasadena. Please confirm.

3. Comment 16: While the authors have changed the text 'SVOC' to 'I/S-VOC' everywhere in the manuscript, they still don't account for IVOCs explicitly since the two papers they refer to (Kim, 2016 and Zhu, 2016) do not include any primary references to IVOC measurements. I would like the authors to acknowledge the fact that the I/S-VOC to POA ratio they have used is based on very old data and have not accounted for newer estimates (e.g., May et al., 2013a,b and Jathar et al., 2014).

4. Comment 20: This sentence needs to be rephrased since it is not clear and does not answer the posed question of how the updates change the organic aerosol mass concentrations: "During the summer 2013, the added surrogates contribute to 15% of the OM1 mass for ELVOC, 20% for organic nitrate from monoterpene oxydation and 0.2% for MBTCA."

5. Comment 22: It's confusing when the authors talk about I/S-VOCs and their oxidation products. Are the logC* to represent the precursors or the products? If precursors, definitionally IVOCs should have C*s equal to or greater than 4. If products, how are the I/S-VOCs represented in the model? As a single model species? How is the reaction characterized? What are the reaction rates? Consider adding these details, even if brief.