Dear authors,

thank you for your detailed responses to the reviewer comments, which are greatly appreciated.

I only have two minor comments:

1. on page 4 the second sentence starting "Previous studies..." needs some fixing as the "and has " seems a little awkward.

2. I would like you to consider adding two comments, with respect to the quantitative interpretation of the observed signals.

(i) It would be useful to have a comment how quantitatively the peak intensities are. In other words do you expect any sensitivity difference for different compound types. This does not affect the actual message of your work, but it would be useful for readers not as familiar with ESI and soft ionization techniques.

(ii) Regarding the point you raise for product P1 m/z151. This has a very high vapor pressure and I think the possibility of some decomposition during analysis has to be considered, e.g. some reversible oligomer. I do not disagree that there could be some partitioning but it is surprising that this is the biggest peak in the positive mode, by far. Would you consider adding a sentence in the conclusion that addresses this point, for example, that further work investigation the origin of the high vapor pressure compounds that result in large signals?

The manuscript contains important and very interesting results and as soon as you respond to my comments, I will move it along.

If you have any questions or these comments are unclear, do not hesitate to email me.

Best Regards,

Frank Keutsch

Dear authors,

many thanks for your detailed responses to the reviewer comments and my minor ones.

Best Regards,

Frank Keutsch