Dear authors,

I have received another report form referee #2 who still has several comments (see below). Please address them.
I will not send the manuscript back tp the reviewer after that. However, I will go carefully through your revised manuscript to see if all concerns have been satisfactorily addressed.

Best regards
Barbara Ervens

------------------------------------------------------------
Referee #2:
The authors have made significant improvements to the manuscript since their first submission and it is increasingly clear what the contribution of this work is to the literature. However, there are still a lot of presentation issues - particularly with the methods sections - with the revised manuscript that make it hard to evaluate the results from the work. For instance, there is little detail for each process that is modeled in terms of what has been done before, what is new, and what the different terminology and equations stand for. Even within each process, the structure of the mathematical formulation is not very clear and at times hard to follow. Below, I list a few examples:

1. See paragraph 3 in the abstract. The authors make qualitative judgements about their model results, e.g., 'satisfactory results', 'strong effect', and 'too significant', without being specific or quantitative. The last sentence in paragraph 3 in the abstract about 'less volatile or more reactive aldehydes...' is hard to connect to the earlier sentence.

2. Section 2.2.1: What xylene are the authors referring to? m-, o-, or p-xylene? Why is table 7 referred to after table 3? Shouldn't it be table 4?

3. Page 7, line 32: What is the meaning of the sentence 'chemical rates are more consistent with thermodynamic equilibrium by computing rates using activities'? What is activity and how is it defined here?

4. Page 8: What are the different terms in equation 5? What do the '-1' and '-2' superscripts mean?

5. There were a lot of grammatically incorrect phrases, which made it hard to understand their meaning, e.g., 'uptake kinetic rate of aldehydes', 'particle but a kinetic of uptake', 'kinetic of uptake can be linked to the kinetic of transformation'.

6. What does the product BiA0D represent? It is introduced on page 10 without any context.

7. What does 'according to experimental conditions' on page 10, line 11 mean?

Dear Authors,

I carefully read your revised manuscript and also your responses to the referee's comments. There are still several issues that should be considered in a further revision.
I will not send it back to the referees; however, I compiled a list of comments (attached) I'd like you to address before I will accept the paper for publication.

Best regards
Barbara Ervens