The presented work examines the OH radical reactions of three terpenoic mono alcohols in the aqueous phase. The study is designed as a combination of experimental and model work and aims at the elucidation of reaction mechanisms and the kinetic evaluation of the investigated conversions. The experiments are very useful and help to estimate the influence of aqueous-phase chemistry in the formation of secondary organic aerosols. The addition of the kinetic evaluation allows the modelling of these pathways under realistic conditions to test the competition of aqueous channels to gas-phase conversion. As the formation of SOA is often regarded as pure condensation of gas-phase reaction products up to now, this work helps to evaluate multiphase chemistry. Although in general very useful, sections of this work should be revised before publication. The most important part would be section 3.1, which includes the discussion of the presented pathways. That part lacks detail and does not seem to be derived from comprehensive discussion of theoretically possible pathways. If the authors can convincingly address the comments below, the manuscript might be suitable for publication.

Major comments

• Section 3.1 The experimental analysis are done by GCMS. Some of the products were identified by authentic standards, but it seems that for the vast majority, the observed ions and corresponding fragmentation pattern was used to derive closed shell products and consequently, derive the reaction pathway. It is not clear to me what the rationalization was for the specific reaction pathway. This should be described in much more detail.
• More to that point, the investigated compounds show some structural similarity with bridging carbon atoms in some and methyl groups. Yet, the presented reaction scheme is quite different for the different compounds. Especially H-atoms geminal to the hydroxyl group, secondary and tertiary carbons behave very differently. The authors showed results from the structure-activity-relationship calculation, but interestingly did not follow the results from that discussion in the pathways. It is very crucial for the presented pathways to explain why the pathways are not more similar and what the choice of products in the presented scheme is based on. It seems that OH does not attack at tertiary carbon atoms. Do the authors have any explanation or hypothesis?
• For the formation of camphoric acid, the authors present a formation pathway. Shouldn’t there be a closed shell intermediate product after the β-scission?
• As detailed in section 2.4, some of the quantifications were done by authentic standards, some by surrogate standards and some by fitting of the kinetic model to the experimental results. As this approach might be useful in specific cases it also opens the question how reliable the results are. If the fitted model results are used for that purpose, the model input directly influence the result. The authors should clearly describe, what assumptions they used and how the quantification was done in detail. At the very least, all compounds that were quantified by model results should be clearly marked. Otherwise, the prominent claim of almost achieved mass-closure should be toned down a bit.
• The introduction should be clearer structured, the authors jump from VOC to SOA formation back to VOC estimated emissions.
• I would suggest to start the results part with a general section and then move to a description of the analytical results before introducing the derived pathways.
• In line 71 it is stated that organic oxidation leads to new particle formation and it sounds as if that is the main fate of organics. I would suggest to restructure and if at all, mention NPF from organics as current topic of research that might occur in specific cases.
• For the case of Menthol in scheme 6 and the table S10 not all products are listed with the respective ions. This makes it hard to judge the scientific soundness of the presented results in the scheme.
• L 339 I am not sure how well partial rate coefficients can fit to yields as the both parameters are very different

Minor comments:

References in the text are often just added to the sentence (Lines 154;169; 214; 220; 270 aso.) I would suggest to include them in the respective sentence to make the relation clear. Especially in Line 297 it is not clear if the reference is to the scheme in the respective publication or in this manuscript

The tables in the SI are not in the same order as the schemes in the manuscript which makes it hard to follow.

L 264. There should be no hyphen before HO2

L269 feasible does not seem to be the right adjective as it describes if something is possible to do, not to occur

Scheme 6: the product from reaction path II has a methyl group instead of the hydroxylgroup.

Table 1 subscripted text seems incomplete. I would not use ‘neutrals’ for the non-acidic compounds

SI line 14 it seems the references to the tables are wrong

SI Figure S6 the caption states that partial rate coefficients are shown, but the axis shows a relative reactivity, which is not a rate. Furthermore, the conditions for that prediction should be stated