Dear authors,

I have received a second review by Referee #2 (Dean Atkinson). He has only some minor comments that should be addressed prior to acceptance of the paper; see below.

Best regards
Barbara Ervens

---------------------------------
I appreciate the author’s consideration of my suggestion that they reduce the schematic figures to a single version that represents the calculations for the involatile cores and the SVOC affected distributions, but I now feel that a little clarification of the distinction would be useful for the first time reader. I would recommend enclosing the VBS information in a dashed box and noting in the caption that this is the addition in section 3. I also think the word “VBS” should connect the size distribution and the C* plot (probably as a double headed arrow) to emphasize that the VBS treatment results in a new size distribution (with altered composition) for the subsaturated condition that is then submitted to the full parameterization which adjusts for the supersaturated conditions and additional partitioning. I would also recommend adding the variation of the van’t Hoff factor as a parenthetical on the “Run Parameterization” part of the figure to emphasize this additional source of uncertainty and perhaps also the repartitioning that occurs in the final version of the parameterization. Finally, I think the figure should also include a distribution plot (obviously just a sketch) of the kappa values that are the final product of the run. This will help establish the context of the next plot(s) since the mean values are the points and the error bars the variability around that mean defined later in the text. I realize this is a lot of work, but as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

It is a style issue, but Tables 1 and 2 are pretty sparse, information-wise. Couldn’t the mean values and SDs (and valid ranges for the van’t Hoff factors) be given in text reasonably cleanly?