Dear authors,

Thank you for the revised version. As you will see by the comments of reviewer 2 and 3 and by my own comments below, there are still plenty of technical corrections and clarifications to be done before the manuscript can finally be published in ACP. The current manuscript is not in the form to proceed.

A thorough (!) editorial read is inevitable. Please have a look at the manuscript preparation guidelines before adding the technical corrections: https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/for_authors/manuscript_preparation.html.

Detailed comments:
• Table 2: There are a few typos here (e.g. ‘pane’). Please double-check the density of the humic acid droplet, which seems quite unreasonable.
• In the abstract, check that the units are correctly set (incl. space between number and unit)
• Check that all acronyms are properly defined (e.g. DPPC on page 2, line 22 is not defined).
• The citation style is often not properly done. For example, inline citations often end with two parenthesis in a row (see line 27 or 18 on page 2 or line 12, page 4). Within sentences, please put the ‘e.g.’ inside the parentheses. For example, ‘…in conjunction with Mie spectroscopy e.g. Bohren and Huffman (1983).’ should be ‘…in conjunction with Mie spectroscopy (see e.g. Bohren and Huffman, 1983).’
• Page 2, line 6-8: Please rephrase.
• Throughout the text: Please use the proper unit for ‘percent’, ‘degree’, ‘microns’, etc.
• First sentence of page 6 (before Eq. 1): Please rephrase and check for correct punctuation.
• Page 6, line 11: Please double-check the units of the Cauchy coefficients.
• Page 6, line 22: It should be ‘by fitting the Ångström equation’. Or are there different versions of the Ångström equation? If so, please clarify.
• Throughout the manuscript: There should be a space between number and unit. Please also check the correct abbreviations and correct comma placements!
• Please harmonize the usage of ‘UV-VIS’ and ‘UV-Vis’.
• Page 8: Equation 4 has already been mentioned and shown on page 7. Again, you need to thoroughly revise your manuscript to exclude further potential sloppiness!
• Page 10, line 5: ‘0.1812’ should only be given with two digits after the comma
• Page 11, second half: Many inconsistencies in capitalization of certain words (figure, Summer, Urban, etc), please revise.
• Page 12, line 2: Add ‘the’ before ‘Cauchy’.
• The abbreviation of the variables in Eq. 5 is not very fortunate. If you find a better variable for albedo (which is main parameter here), e.g. omega, then ‘TOA’ and ‘no aerosol’/’aerosol’ should be in the superscript and subscript, respectively. So for example, omega_no aerosol^TOA instead of TOAalbedo_no aerosol.
• Page 14, line 14: I can’t find $\sigma$ in the equations above. Please revise.
• Figure 1: The first lines in the graph (remote Antarctic aerosol extract) is not mentioned in the caption.
• Caption of Fig. 2: The panel labels (a) and (b) are not shown in the actual figure.
• Table 1 on page 30: I would recommend to replace ‘Aerosols Analyzed’ by ‘Particles Analyzed’ since you only target the particle and not the gas phase.
• Page 30 and 31: The table labeling is wrong. Table 1 exists two times. Please double-check that the labeling is also correct for the figures and tables within the text.

Kind regards

Paul.

Dear authors,

Thank you for your thorough editorial read and the applied changes. The manuscript is now ready for final publication in ACP.

Kind regards from Sweden,

Paul.