|The authors response to the referees is in general good, and I welcome the additional information given in Appendix A, Table A1. I still have one major comment, and a few minor ones, which I think should be addressed before the manuscript should be accepted:|
1. Sect 2, L117 onwards (line numbers refer to annotated ATC manuscript).
The "revised" model description consists of little more than saying "We constructed a 0D box model". The text still gives no evidence that the model has any ability to predict SOA in realistic conditions at all. This omission is justified in the "answers-to-referee" document with the comments that the document is already very long, and that much evaluation has indeed been done, but the publication is only at the in-preparation stage. Even though this 2nd paper is still in the preparation stage, I think the authors need to mention that some evaluation work has been done. (Actually, it is regrettable that SOA results from a model are presented before the model evaluation is presented.)
The comment that this explanation was omitted because the manuscript was already very long is odd given that the authors use ca. 14 pages on presenting results from this non-verified model. As I noted in my original review, I thought the results section was over-long, and that could have condensed given the simplicity of the model.
I would encourage the authors to add some summary of model performance, either in the main text or in the Supplementary.
As a detail concerning model description, the term BLH is used, but not its usage.
2. Fig. 1. The caption is still a little confusing. One usually puts the list label (here a-h) before the explanation, thus (a) first text, (b) second text etc., but here the authors puts (a)-(g) after the texts, and "h" (inconsistently without parentheses) before the last text.
3. Table 2: a) BHL in caption should be BLH, b) it would be good to add temperatures to this table also, so that all key parameters are included.
4. Sect 2.6: L307 The sentence starting "Similarly to previous atmospheric modelling studies of herbivory (Bergström et al., 2014; Douma et al., 2019), we constrained the concentrations..." is misleading I think. The Bergstrom et al paper uses explicit calculations of OH, O3 and NO3 from the gas-phase photochemical scheme of a 3-D CTM, and the Douma et al paper uses concentrations from the MLC-CHEM 1-D model. In both cases the SIE compounds themselves do not affect the calculated oxidant concentrations, but the type of "constraints" used in these papers are driven by chemical mechanisms, sensitive to meteorology and BVOC emissions, and thus of a different type to the very simplified system used by Taipale et al.