Although, ACP does not publish a great deal of laboratory studies, this type work is appropriate for the journal and its readership. The authors have clearly performed a significant amount of experimental measurements in the preparation of this manuscript. However, the presentation of the work falls below normal publication standards. The overall quality and clarity of the presentation greatly hinders the communication of the scientific results.

On the basis of the reviewer comments and my review, I am requesting that the authors make major revisions to their manuscript to improve the communication, clarity, logic, (remove) unnecessary repetition (“As mentioned above” type text), (remove) meaningless general statements, English, and grammar. In addition, the presentation of the scientific results for the molecules under study could be made more concise and earlier to follow for the reader. The tables and figures seem fine.

I highly recommend that the authors have a native English-speaking colleague critically (line-by-line) review the manuscript prior to re-submission. This is simply too large a task for a reviewer or editor.

A few general theme comments:
* Only one of the compounds included in this study (3,3DM2ButOH) is actually methyl saturated. Therefore, the title and text are in error. This correction would lead to the removal of the misleading MSA acronym.
* The abstract mentions “tentative estimation of molecular yields” and quotes very large ranges of yields, which are not meaningful. The authors need to be more specific regarding the actual yield values and for what initiation reaction they are obtained from. I believe this information is actually available within the manuscript tables, although hard to follow in the text. Or, is this a problem with not having good standards?
* There is a long discussion of reactivity observations that have been well-established through the development of structure activity relationships (SARs) by Atkinson and co-workers. The small data set from this work is probably not sufficient to revise our thinking of SARs. The present work needs to be placed in the proper perspective.
* The introduction contains a great deal of seemingly unnecessary material and background information. Even with that said, it is not made clear why these particular compounds were chosen for study (biofuels?).

I acknowledge the authors for their efforts to improve the overall quality of the manuscript and presentation.