Dear authors,

As you know, in the first round of review your manuscript received mixed reviews. I appreciate your revisions and do not see a problem with publication in ACP, although I note that your responses omit some of the reviewer comments which made it more difficult to assess the changes. I then sought an additional opinion from someone with expertise somewhat different from my own, since the original reviewers were unavailable, and I appreciate your patience with that process. Having received a new positive review at this stage I plan to accept your paper subject to a few remaining issues:

Among the not-addressed reviewer comments from the first round are several calling for more general revision of the text for succinctness and readability (see, for example, paragraph 2 of reviewer 2’s comments). I encourage you to revisit comments such as these and consider whether there are achievable revisions that would better address these comments. Along similar lines, it seems that very little was actually changed in the text in response to Reviewer #1, even for issues raised which are specifically rebutted in the authors’ response. Please reconsider whether textual changes could alleviate potential confusion for other similar readers of the published paper.

Beyond these issues, reviewer 3 has made a few additional comments, which I do not expect to be too troublesome.

Anne

Dear authors,

I appreciate your patience through this process and I am happy to accept your manuscript for publication at this point. One small point of clarification, around line 160 (of the old line numbers), 150 ppb really isn't "typical" for tropospheric ozone. It isn't orders of magnitude off of ambient concentrations (as in some laboratory oxidation studies) but it is a factor of 2-3 beyond typical North American O3 concentrations. I realize that this might be the concentration used in the cited study but I would rephrase along the lines of "studies conducted at near-ambient O3 concentrations (150 ppb) find that..." or whatever similar phrasing makes grammatical sense.

Anne