Dear Authors:
Thank you for your consideration of the referee comments. Before acceptance to ACP, there are a few minor issues I would like to see addressed.
-Please address the comment of Referee 2 in the most recent review.
-I urge the authors to reconsider the discussion regarding wet removal (Referee 1 specific comment 6; lines 977-986, 999-1006 in the revised track changes version). In particular, the authors need to more convincingly show that there is a connection between wet removal (rain, fog, etc.) and high LWC (the addition of precipitation to figure 1 does not adequately show this). Regarding the variation in MO-OOA with LWC (Figure 7), given the large variability in MO-OOA in each bin, it does not appear to me that there are any robust trends. I urge the authors to consider how robust the trends are and add discussion regarding this to lines 999-1006. Also, could the results be explained by changes in production rather than changes in removal?
-In regards to Referee 1 specific comment 7, I also find the discussion regarding MSA confusing. It would help if the authors incorporated some of their response to the referee into the revised version of the manuscript.
-Lines 894-896: What exactly is meant by “more prominent”? More mass or a larger fraction of total sulfate production? Have the authors considered other explanations that could account for this?
Line 964: “likely results” It should be possible to directly calculate this and make a more definitive statement.
-Several sections of the manuscript need to be revised to clarify that the results are a correlation and not definitive proof that a specific process is happening. Specific examples include (line numbers refer to track changes version):
-->Lines 977-986 (see above comment regarding production vs loss)
-->Lines 1011-1012: What about the role of NO3 chemistry? How is that separated from aqueous-phase chemistry at night? Was the role of carryover (influence of daytime production) explored?
--> Lines 1048-1050: The statement that aerosol water facilities formation of ON needs to be supported. In general, hydrolysis is thought to be a sink of ON. Couldn’t this be due to higher organic nitrate yields from NO3 + BVOC chemistry compared to OH + BVOC chemistry?
-Resolution of the figures needs to be improved (particularly the time series figures). They are currently difficult to read.

Congratulations!