|Review of the revised version of “Complex plant-derived organic aerosol as ice-nucleating|
particles – more than a sum of their parts?” by Steinke et al., submitted to ACPD
This revised version has improved, compared to the original version. However, I have a few remaining remarks. The related adaptions are likely easily done and once they are incorporated, as far as I am concerned, the manuscript can be considered for publication in ACP.
(Line numbers in the following refer to the version with the tracked changes.)
1) In the abstract, while cellulose is cited as “has been suggested by recent studies as a proxy for quantifying the primary cloud ice formation caused by particles originating from vegetation”, it is still not mentioned at all that biological particles are likely to play a much larger role, at least at higher freezing temperatures (> 258 K, maybe even further down). Your examinations go up into this temperature range and therefore mentioning them in the abstract helps to prevent that readers of your text in the future will ignore these important contributors so atmospheric INP.
2) The new text starting in line 58 (“Agricultural …”) should be started a bit differently so that it fits to the flow of the text before. The motivation here is that this “missing source of INPs …” could be found in agricultural dust, as far as I understand it.
3) Line 121: Add “area” between “surface” and “based”.
4) The new text starting in line 145 fits better to the next section (2.3), as this is important for the determination of the surface area.
5) Line 169 ff: You argue that sedimentation is negligible. But later in the text, for one sample, you even argue with sedimentation to explain the observed difference. And I agree with your later argument. But that also means that issues with a wrongly estimated surface area can be expected to contribute more to potential deviations between different methods than the redistribution of soluble material. In order to not give a wrong impression, "negligible" should not be said here! I suggest to delete the part of the sentence with “negligible” in it and reformulate it to -> "But to understand the full effect, more future studies are needed."
6) Line 161: Add a “to” between “lead” and “differences”.
7) Line 297-298 and Fig. 3: Do you mean Fig. 3 in line 297? (Otherwise I am confused and revisions in the description of Fig. 2 and related text would be needed.)
Even if you mean Fig. 3 here, I am still a bit concerned as this scaling down seems a bit arbitrary. And Fig. 3 has not changed between the first submission and now, so I wonder if this scaling down was already done in the first version, or if Fig. 3 has really not changed? Are these scaling numbers based on any scientific evidence that can be cited here? That would improve the message of the work substantially.