Dear authors,

Thank you for your revised manuscript. All comments by the referees have been satisfactorily incorporated. I have had another read of your manuscript and have a few more additional mostly minor comments.

- I would remove the acronyms within the abstract (sw, ch, rh, ND, FD, etc) since they are not really used within the abstract and shortly later defined again. The later introduced acronyms are also not consequently used afterwards.

- Line 15: Add a space before "with".

- Some of the references in the introduction are selections and not complete. I would suggest to at least add "e.g." in front of those cases were just some recent and not necessarily the original studies are cited. Please also order them by year.

- Line 42, 43: Add "particle diameter" before "<2.5micron" and ">2.5micron"

- Line 47: A reference is needed for the sentence "It was suggested that ..."

- A general Latex tip (applicable within the text but also for the equations): Add "\rm" to the parts of the variable or equations where you use text. So e.g. $\rho_{\rm eff}$ or {\rm with} (in Eq 1) or g/kg$_{\rm dry fuel}$. Acronyms should also not be in italics (e.g. PM_$0.5$)

- Line: 157: I guess you used the CCN-100 from DMT?

- Line 180: "slpm" -> "lpm"

- Line 190: What kind of neutralizer was used for the SMPS? Was a pre-impactor installed?

- Line 192: It is not clear to me if you really used the SP-data from the SP-AMS. Please clarify

- Line 210-213: Could you give a reference or archive for the EN-protocols?

- Figure 2: Why is the unit for the particle number concentration (cm^-3) gone? Please double-check your units.

- Concerning the second major comment by reviewer 1 and the particle losses: This one additional sentence is not sufficient. Please explicitly state in the revised manuscript that particle loss calculations were not done and add your reasoning. Concerning the SMPS data: Was this also not loss-corrected?

- Concerning the data, I recommend that you store the data behind your study on an open-accessible repository (with a DOI). The current way of referencing to data via a personal contact is not optimal. Please have a look at the data guidelines of ACP: https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/about/data_policy.html

Thanks and kind regards

Paul.

Dear Thomas,

Thanks for the last revisions. The data statement is not ideal but okay for now.

Kind regards

Paul.