Dear authors,

I have received two re-reviews of your manuscript. The one reviewer does not have any additional comments; however, the other reviewer raised some minor issues that should be addressed. - See below.
After this, I will be happy to accept your manuscript for publication.

Best regards
Barbara

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

The authors have addressed my concerns satisfactorily. However, I do have some additional minor comments that I consider important to have in the manuscript before it is published in ACP.

* It is not clear from the abstract that the authors implemented an implied WBF parameterization based on field data in the GEOS-Chem model, which does not represent the WBF process at all. This needs to be clearly stated upfront. A good place to do this would be in the first few sentences of the abstract. Also, the word “implied” needs to be in there, as it may be confusing to climate modellers, for example, who might expect to see prognostic equations for the WBF process in the traditional sense.
* Why are there far fewer locations where measurements of scavenging efficiency and washout ratio were made?
* Throughout the manuscript, please replace CCNs with CCN (the plural form of nucleus is nuclei).
* Page 4, line 12: of —> for
* Section 3.2 The oversimplification of assuming that WBF is based on temperature alone should be stated here in addition to conclusions.