Dear Authors,

Please address the reviewer comments on the revised manuscript. Below I added comments to help clarify those points.

With kindest regards,

Daniel Knopf

Regarding the reviewer's major concern 1:
Please clarify the ambiguity outlined in the review. Particulate Cl- enhances NO2 uptake. However, as pointed out with increased NO2 uptake, one expects also more HCl formation. Accounting HCl as "particulate Cl-", driving NO2 uptake, may overestimate the effect of actual particulate Cl- for NO2 uptake?

Regarding to major concern 2:
It looks like that RH and SA have a much stronger impact on kNO2 (Fig. S10-S12). All shown scenarios are within an R2 of 0.89 to 0.91 which does not indicate much difference. Does SA imply more particulate Cl- during SLB? Does increased RH imply more accessibility of Cl- at the particle surface?

Regarding to major concern 3:
The model underestimates HONO. When NO2 uptake is considered, HONO is overestimated (in places almost by a factor of two). A correlation coefficient of 0.46 with p < 0.05, only indicates a very moderate relationship. If I understand this correctly, in a way, a low correlation should be expected, since this is a non-SLB scenario. However, assuming less particulate Cl-, thus, slower NO2 uptake is expected, why is HONO production significantly overestimated by the model?

Dear Authors,

Before your manuscript can be published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, I ask you to correct a minor issue as given below.

With kindest regards,

Daniel Knopf

Technical correction:
Line 381 - 384: Is seems there is a word missing in "...conditions produced only limited in the simulated HONO...". Produced only limited of what?