Comment on "A New Parameterization of Photolysis Rates for Oxygenated Volatile Organic Compounds (OVOCs)"

This work presented a novel method to estimate photolysis rates for OVOCs and uses an observational based box model to evaluate the contribution of OVOCs photolysis to the production rate of total radicals. However, the manuscript requires the inclusion of additional information to help readers understand and potentially further apply the proposed method. I recommend that the authors provide additional explanations and make minor revision to clarify their methods prior to publication. The authors may consider the following suggestions:

1. Line 104: The authors only provided an overview of the three methods without summarizing and comparing their respective advantages and disadvantages. It is recommended to include a comparative discussion to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the existing approaches, thereby better motivating the new method proposed in this study.
2. The newly proposed photolysis mechanism was only compared with the results from MCM. Could the authors also compare it with other chemical mechanisms? If not, please explain the reason.
3. The method developed in this study is based on the ratio j(OVOC)/j(NO₂). Given the wavelength-dependent absorption cross-sections of different species and functional groups, would using j(NO₂) as a reference introduce potential biases under varying environmental conditions?
4. Line 469: After incorporating the new photolysis mechanism, the model simulations still significantly overestimate the observed values. What might be the possible reasons for this discrepancy?
5. Figure 7, I would suggest to add sub panels to compare the non-HCHO OVOC photolysis between this work and MCM calculation with error bars to show the potential difference. Similarly,  error bars should be added in Figure 8.
6. Figure 8 and Figure 9 (a, c, e)were not refered in the text.
7. The evaluation of the newly developed method could be further strengthened. As shown in Figure S5, the results from this study differ significantly from those estimated by previous approaches. Please include more explanation and discussion on this aspect in the manuscript.

See attach.