Dear authors,

Thank you very much for your revised manuscript. It has substantially improved. However, it still requires some further (mainly minor) corrections before it can be published in ACP.

The paper needs an additional and thorough editorial read. Especially the language needs some improvement (as also noted by Reviewer #2) and I would recommend a proof-reading by a native speaker. I have had no time to correct all language issues. Please study once more the manuscript preparation guidelines (https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/for_authors/manuscript_preparation.html) and follow the rules especially with regard to units (e.g. units should be formatted with negative exponents) and abbreviations within the text.

More detailed comments from my side can be found below.

In addition, please also see the comments by Reviewer #3.

Thanks and kind regards

Paul Zieger.

Detailed comments (in order of appearance):

Line 33: Earth should be capitalized.
Line 51: ‘ration’ -> ‘ratio’
Line 54: Add ‘on’ before ‘optical properties’.
Line 55: I would replace ‘from giving’ by ‘to give’.
Line 61: I would put the “integrating-sandwich with integrating sphere technique’ in italics and/or mark how the abbreviation ISSW results from this (it is not clear to me).
Line 64: I guess this relates to ISSW, so maybe replace ‘their method’ by ‘the ISSW method’.
Line 66: A small Latex hint for here and throughout the manuscript: Put ‘\rm’ into the sub- or superscript when you like to add text or abbreviations into variables, symbols or equations (so e.g. $\sigma_{\rm abs}$).
Line 72: Please add that the Schneefernerhaus is located in Germany or in the German Alps.
Line 76: Here and throughout the manuscript: fullerene should not be capitalized (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerene).
Line 79: ‘Sect. 3’ -> ‘Section 3’ (it is the beginning of a sentence)
Line 82: Add ‘in’ before Sect. 5.
Line 98: The ambient aerosol data measured by the OPC and CPC seemed to be used later on. Suggest to remove this. Please mention the model and manufacturer of the MAAP (as has been done for all the other instruments later on).
Line 107: KIT is not defined yet.
Line 133: The exhaust line is not shown in Fig. 1.
Line 168: Reference for Nanopure water is missing.
Line 194: The CPC type and manufacturer is not mentioned.
Line 209: This sentence is unclear (a verb is somehow missing).
Line 271: Here and throughout the manuscript: Please ensure that you figures are discussed in order of appearance.
Line 281: Maybe mention that these numbers are ‘mean +/- std’ (or reference to Table 1 once more).
Line 308: The referencing to the German Federal Environment Agency is repetitive (see method part).
Line 387: If I understood it correctly, gamma is not a correlation coefficient but rather a slope (derived from a linear regression). Also later, gamma is suddenly called enhancement factor. I would suggest to properly introduce it here.
Page 12, first part of the second paragraph: This is part of the methods and I would suggest move it to the front (maybe as an own subsection).
Line 453: ‘Figure 14 Figure 16’ -> ‘Fig. 14 to Fig. 16.’
First paragraph on page 13: How did you derive the fraction of biogenic particles or what definition did you use to discriminate biogenic particles using the WIBS4? It would be nice to have a dedicated figure for this result (maybe for the supplement?).

- The statement on the data availability is missing (https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/about/data_policy.html).
- Figure 4: The figure is difficult to read when having a black-and-white printout.
- Figure 12: The right axis is not described in the figure caption.
- Figure 13: For me it looks like that some of the green arrows have shifted and are not really pointing towards the green dots.
- Please add in the respective figures what kind of linear regressions you have used. For some figures it also looks like that the regression lines were forced through zero. If so, this should be mentioned.
- Your manuscript has quite large number of figures (as also pointed out by reviewer #3). You could consider to move some of the more technical figures to the supplement (e.g. Fig. 3, 4, 5, 8).

Dear authors,

Thanks for the latest revisions. The manuscript is now almost ready for publication in ACP. However, in the uploaded version, the figure numbering has been mixed up (e.g. lines 439, 448, 449, 455 and more). Please careful check that all figures are correctly linked within the manuscript but also check the supplement). I would also recommend to use the same font within the supplement (see e.g. figure captions). Please also harmonize the capitalization of the headings (see e.g. Sect. 2.5).

Kind regards

Paul Zieger.