Dear Dr. Pinsky,

I would like to see the response to reviewers file include specific changes made to the manuscript, and that greater attention be made to accommodate the reviewer concerns as explanatory text in the revision.

As one example, in the context of studies of inhomogeneous and homogeneous mixing, mean volume radius is the more physical quantity, not effective radius, since we are looking at evaporation rather than scattering. Further, the two are certainly not necessarily within 10% of each other when droplet size distributions are broad, not to mention that it is the mean volume radius that is larger not the other way round.

As a general rule, if the author is asking for clarification it is because the text is not clear, and modifications need to be made not just to the response to reviewer file but to the text itself so that readers with the same concerns will be satisfied.

I will look forward to a revised version

Regards,

Tim Garrett

Dear Dr. Pinsky,

We now have a second review. Both reviewers are recommending publication. However Reviewer 2 continues to have concerns about how the mixing diagram is described in your article. For the work to have a maximum impact, it will need to communicate well to those who make aircraft observations, who are only ever seeing "snapshots" of mixing states.

Please consider Reviewer 2's comments carefully prior to resubmissions.

Regards,

Tim Garrett