I believe that the reviewers have addressed the referee comments in their responses and largely sufficiently caveated their conclusions in the revision. I would support the last comment by the referee that the suggested statement in the conclusions is revised by the authors to clarify that the conclusion assumes that the processes are well represented in their model such that the expected CCN decrease in their simulations would then represent that in the real atmosphere. The discrepancy between the Connolly et al findings and those in the current study are such that further work is warranted to establish the implications of a detailed representation of droplet formation on multimodal aerosol populations.

I'd like to thank the authors for accommodating the latest minor revision and I'm happy that the paper is suitable for publication.