Both reviewers are happy that their original comments have been substantively addressed, as am I. The clarifications have been most useful and resulted in a much improved manuscript. However, both reviewers have some remaining relatively minor concerns that should be addressed in preparing the revised manuscript. The revised manuscript will not need to go back to the reviewers, but all comments require attention for editorial review. To facilitate this editorial review, can I please ask the authors to again provide a point-by-point response to the 2nd round of reviewer comments.

The authors have largely adequately addressed this last round of reviewer comments, for which they are to be commended. However, there are two specific responses that are not satisfactorily addressed or appropriately worded. The first is:

"The mass accommodation coefficient subsumes all resistances to gas−particle partitioning other than gas phase diffusion; and a mass accommodation coefficient smaller than 1 would indicate that the condensed phase is highly viscous and exhibits substantial kinetic limitations."

A mass accommodation coefficient smaller than unity by no means indicates a highly viscous condensed phase with substantial kinetic limitation. I would refer the authors to Kolb et al., ACP, doi:10.5194/acp-10-10561-2010, 2010 for a thorough discussion of the meaning of mass accommodation coefficient. It is perfectly possible for mass accommodation coefficient to be very much lower than unity without a particle being highly viscous - for example the mass accommodation coefficient of water vapour to a lubricating oil particle would be extremely low, but the particle would be quite inviscid. Any particle exhibiting immiscibility with the condensing vapour (or with a tendency to outgas or "salt-out" the component because of strong non-ideality) could behave the same whilst being quite fluid. I would agree with the original reviewer's request not to conflate thermodynamics and kinetic inhibition in the absence of a mechanism but find the proposed mechanism unconvincing. I'd invite the authors to tighten up the argument.

The second difficulty with the response is the repeated statement that there is a "standard VBS approach". There are a multitude of VBS approaches and the authors should be specific. One way they could do this is to anchor the statement on a reference that distinguishes the approach to which they are referring from other "non-standard" VBS treatments (by stating "standard VBS approach (e.g. xyz et al., 2005)").

Once the authors have adequately addressed these two points, the paper will be suitable for publication.

The revisions are satisfactory and the authors have written a paper that will make a significant contribution to the literature.
They should be congratulated for their work on this.