This study presents a comprehensive seven-year summertime dataset of three major Low Molecular Weight Organic Acids (LMWOA, i.e., formate, acetate and oxalate) in cloud water collected via semi-automated sampling from atop Whiteface Mountain (WFM) 2018-2024. The sampling and sample treatment methodologies adopted are robust. I particularly appreciate the tests performed on sampling and storage (filtered/unfiltered, cool or frozen, …). I hope that these results will be used in the future to establish guidelines for cloud water sampling.

I have few remarks on this work but I globally appreciate the results presented and it deserves publication.

• The introduction section lacks of novelty. The references are old, except for the articles published by the group. No mention of studies in other part of the globe, despite the possibility to enrich the discussion, such as Shen et al. 2024 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171775)
• The collector used is a passive sampler, while most of the collectors used on other sites are active (Schmucke, puy de Dôme, ….). Do the authors have an idea of the comparability of the samplers in term of cut-off diameter of cloud droplets and concentrations of ions in the samples?
• How is pH measured? Could the author report the error on pH measurement in Fig. 7? I think everything is reported in Lawrence’s paper, but it would be better to have access to the details directly in the text.
• The comparison of the sample treatment methodologies is very interesting but I wonder how oxalate is depleted in cloud synthetic solution filtered with 0.2 µm mesh. The authors explain that acetate and formate are prone to reach the equilibrium with the gas phase and explain their lower concentration, but oxalate is not volatile and I don’t see any explanation in the text.
• “However, the aged filtered sample exhibited 45% higher acetate concentration than the aged unfiltered sample. This difference was not due to loss of acetate in the unfiltered sample, since the aged unfiltered sample had 11% higher acetate concentrations than the fresh unfiltered sample.” If I understand well, the fresh sample has concentration x, the aged unfiltered had concentration x+11% and the aged filtered sample (x+11%)+45%. This means that the concentration of acetate is increasing. I think that the explanation of a possible microbial contamination with Acetobacter strains is insufficient: this puzzling result needs to be checked in light of the concentration of acetate. For concentration of the order of 1-2 micromolar and considering the potential coelution with lactic and glycolic acid, this difference could be not significant. I would suggest giving the actual concentration and not just the normalized value.
• Line 268: growing season à late spring, early summer, canopy bloom…
• Lines 279-280: reduced photochemical activity or reduced emission of precursors from vegetation?