Dear Authors:
Thank you for your consideration of the referee comments. I think that the comments have largely been adequately addressed and I am happy to accept the paper subject to consideration of the minor comments below. Line numbers refer to the track changes version of the manuscript.

1) I agree with referee 1 that stacked bar charts using a log scale are confusing/can easily lead to misinterpretation. Here I am specifically referring to Figure 7b and Figures S11. In my opinion, the non-stacked plots of Fig 6 are easier to interpret. In a stacked bar chart, one wants to connect the size of the bar to the relative importance - something that is not easily done on a log scale. Personally, I am unsure what additional information Figure 7b adds that isn't captured by Fig. 7c and S10. In my opinion, Figure S10 does a better job of representing the relative contribution of each instrument. If more information about total concentrations wanted to be conveyed, one could consider sizing the pie charts to the total concentration. I urge the authors to consider these points and to think about improving the representation of the data provided in Figures 7b and S11.

2) I suggest clarifying the first sentence of the captions for Figures 6 and 7 to more clearly articulate how these figures show different data. The main text does this well, but the legends would be unclear to anyone skimming the figures only.

3) Line 16: I suggest "In order to obtain a more complete ..." as there may be compounds not measured by any of these techniques (or compounds lost to inlets, etc.).

4) Line 94 "And to our knowledge ...." I suggest removing this added sentence as it detracts from the paper by overselling the work.

5) Line 122: Please explain the zeroing mode for the MION in slightly more detail. Zeroing for which configuration?

6) Line 147): A few more details regarding how the high RH can cause uncertainties is warranted given how much of the manuscript focuses on quantification. Is the known bias consistent with the factor of 2 that the MION-Br is scaled by? How role do changes in ambient RH play?

7) Lines 177-179: The new sentence is out of place here. I agree this is important information to convey, but it would be a better fit elsewhere. Perhaps in section 2.2.2.

8) Line 350-352: Based on your measurements, you know the answer to the first
possibility listed (different saturation levels) whereas the other two are more difficult to assess with the current instruments. Therefore, it isn't really appropriate to list the three together. And the first one should probably be investigated more quantitatively.

9) Line 385: I suggest replacing "obtain" with "estimate" given the methods used.

10) Line 407: I suggest adding "more" in between "obtaining a" and "complete picture" (see comment 3).

11) Please double check that the SI figures are referenced in order. I believe that multiple SI figures are referenced before the first mention of Fig. S1.

Congratulations!