Dear Authors,

I've been able to obtain at least 1 referee report for your revised manuscript and I've also carefully read this paper. From my read and the Referee report below, we both agree this is acceptable with minor revisions noted. I want to apologize again for the very slow progress of this manuscript. Please recall I've had a TERRIBLE time obtaining knowledgeable reviewers to agree to review the original manuscript and even the revised manuscript. This is quite an unusual circumstance. I will say the revised manuscript is much improved.

Thank you again for your patience. Once you address the minor comments below, I will immediately accept this for publication in ACP.

Most sincerely, Jason Surratt




Final Comments to Address before Publication in ACP:

This is the second review on this manuscript. The authors adequately responded to my comments and concerns on the first review by restructuring the manuscript and I find this manuscript almost ready for publication. This manuscript should be published, as it is relevant and well-constructed.

I have a few, very minor comments:
1.) lines 29-30 in the abstract have Whistler Peak listed in two sentences, one describing significant effects and one describing minor effects. It cannot be in both.
2.) The last paragraph (1 sentence) of the introduction is essentially a rewording of the second to last sentence. Suggest removing the last sentence or reducing the wording in the second to last sentence.
3.) Page 8, line 14, “… since the size distribution data from 10 nm to 1000 microns, measured by OPC,…” has limits incorrect for an OPC. Likely the 10 nm refers to an SMPS instrument, which was not working for some or most of the time under study…
4.) page 11 line 19, “Fine organic aerosol mass (~88% based on the ACSM measurements)….” should include “mass fraction” in parentheses to be clear that 88% of the mass of the particles were organic.