Thanks for attending to the reviewer's comment. I have just a few more things that need your attention.

Abstract – Page 13, Line 16. It is a bit of an overstatement to say “known to be harmful” It would be better to say ‘could be’ or ‘suspected to be’. I think you explained it reasonably well later on in the paper.
Abstract – Page 13, Line 34. Eliminate the word “for” here.
Abstract – Page 13, Line 38. Should say “rarely exceed levels above 10 pptv in other areas of the troposphere”

Page 16, Line 13. I think you should keep the Barth et al., reference here, because Roberts and Liu use that estimate for their fastest heterogeneous loss estimate (low pH clouds).

Page 18, lines 22-23. Part of this sentence “not being considered by mean of a large and constant resistance” doesn’t make sense. Do you mean “not being considered by using a large and constant resistance” ?

Page 23, Line 7. It looks like the rate constant for NCO + O2 has been measured: https://kinetics.nist.gov/kinetics/Detail?id=1974SCH/SCH363:4
although I have not looked at the primary source.

Page 24, Line 17. I suggest restructuring this to read “are negligible on a global scale”.

Page 24, Lines 27 and elsewhere through the presentation of the results. I don’t think the uncertainties in the model estimates justify your use of 6 significant figures here. It seems like 3 would be the most appropriate number (e.g. 2519.61 should be 2520). This is true for other places you have presented results, really 3 sig. fig. are the most that can be justified.