Dear authors,

Reviewer #2 has some additional comments (see below) which I'd like you to address. After the newly revised paper, I may accept it for publication.

Best regards
Barbara Ervens

--------------------------------
Referee #2:
The authors have addressed most of the comments made by the reviewers. Particularly they found out that some of their modeled cases were under low-NO conditions and accordingly made changes to the manuscript. However, in the revised paper, they still did not discuss whether their modeled cases fall into good/risky/bad regions (in terms of VOC photolysis at “non-tropospheric” wavelengths). It is important to include this discussion (e.g. the figure in the response to my first comment in the first round of review) in the paper. That figure shows that many modeled cases are likely to be under risky or bad conditions. Peng and Jimenez (2017) recommended a very strong dilution of the sources before injection into the reactor, while the dilution seemed to be insufficient in the experiments modeled in this study. The authors should clearly convey this message in the paper, which would be very useful to OFR users, as OFRs are increasingly used in combustion exhaust studies.