Dear Dr Yang,
Your MS has been reviewed by two of the referees again. Although many of the points made by the 3 referees have been addressed (thank you), there are still some outstanding items which I would like you to address. Please see below. Could you please consider these points (repeated below), and submit a further list of responses, and a revised MS showing the changes that have been made.
Many thanks.
Best wishes,
Professor Heard.

Although the figure quality has improved, the language still needs to be improved substantially before final publication.

Further model detail needs to be provided in the manuscript itself. The reader shouldn't have to refer to the author's responses for details on the boundary layer height assumed.

The authors suggest that they have run the model for different spin up times and report a difference within 10%, but no detail on the different spin up times tested is provided!

I still think it is important to include a time-series of measured, calculated and modelled reactivity somewhere in the manuscript. If there is missing data for the Beijing campaign, just leave gaps in the time-series rather than interpolate. The pie-charts generated from the campaign averages hide a lot of detail - e.g. diurnal variation and day to day variability.

Paris is still not included in figure 10b (and has now been removed from fig. 10a, but is still discussed in section 4.1).

Mention that the NOAA 2005 dataset was from Beijing in the manuscript. Include a comment on the sensitivity of OPE to the species chosen to represent the missing reactivity in section 4.4.