This paper reports the results of a thorough and carefully conducted experimental study of the formation of secondary aerosol precursors from the autooxidation of several long chain aldehydes.  The topic is of current research interest to the atmospheric chemistry community.  The results are presented clearly and concisely.  The conclusions are well supported by the results.  I recommend publication as is.

I noticed a couple of typos:

(1) On line 121, “we conducted the reactions at variable reaction times” might read better as “we studied the reactions over a range of reaction times”.

(2) Calvert et al. "(2020)" should be “Calvert et al. (2011)” throughout.

Review of “Rapid formation of secondary aerosol precursors from the autoxidation of C5-C8 n-aldehydes” by Barua, et al.

This paper reports on product observations of oxidation of suite of n-aldehydes in the presence of OH and other peroxy radicals with and without added NO.  The study makes use of a nitrate (NO3-) chemical ionization mass spectrometer for product detection.  The experiments are conducted in a flow tube-type of experiment at room temperature and 1 atmosphere, using the ozone reaction with tetra methyl ethylene as an OH source, analyzing products after a range of reaction times.  Highly oxygenated molecules are observed to form after short reaction times  (timescales of approx. 1-10 s) for all aldehydes studied, and the formation mechanism is proposed to occur through autoxidation reactions of peroxy radical intermediates.

General comments:

Generally, these results are very nice, following in step with a previous paper by the same first author. While this is a result demonstrating similar aldehydes behave like hexanal for longish RO2 lifetimes, I think the authors should add more value to this work, by extending this work beyond the previous paper.  A simple kinetic model of the experiments would, substantially improve the understanding of the experiments, and allow more definitive statements to be made regarding the very important H-shift rate coefficients. Calibration and time-response/wall loss of the sensor and experiment apparatus needs to be discussed and may help authors report HOM yields. In addition, a simulation would lead to better understanding of the experiments with added NO.

Specific comments:

L82-83:  ‘autoxidation’ needs to be more broadly defined… perhaps something like “Chain radical processes, generally starting with an oxygen-centered radical and leading to a carbon-centered radical species whose dominant fate is to add additional molecular oxygen.”  Most would consider alkoxy H-shifts and endocylization of peroxy and alkoxy radicals, with subsequent O2 addition to be examples of autoxidation.

L91-96:  Please also cite previous work on RO2 H-shifts from aldehydes.  These have generally been found to be fast:  https://doi.org/10.1021/jp108358y, https://doi.org/10.1021/jp211560u, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.6b09370, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.9b01972, etc…

L101: replace ‘besides’ with ‘In addition’?

L132:  ‘within’ à ‘below’ ?

L181-184(and other places): The term ‘appeared’ is unfortunately not quantitative. It would be more useful to the reader if some additional information were provided. This ties back to the general comments above regarding instrumental calibration/sensitivity, and noise level and response/wall-losses of the instrument.  Ideally, something like XX fraction of ‘aldehyde’ molecules add 6 additional oxygen atoms within 2.1 s after reacting with OH, in absences of bimolecular reactions.

Fig 1E:  The bottom of this panel should be zoomed by ~4x on Y-axis.

Figs 1,2,6:  There are negative going peaks in these figures, which leads to the question of what is being shown in the figures.  Please explain the data processing in the text, ie is some background being subtracted off? This can also lead into a discussion of response times (when zeroing or starting/stopping expt).

General comment:  As a reader, I want  know more about how your experiment evolves as a function of time.  A simple kinetic simulation would quickly allow the authors to plot time profiles of the various reactants and products in the system, and would help readers to better understand the experiment.

L219-220:  To jump from comparing signals (shown in figure) to comparing yields (in text) one must be making some assumption about sensitivities… explicitly state what is being assumed for sensitivity in text.

L222-227: This could be diagnosed with kinetic simulation.

L236-237: This could be phased more clearly.

Sect 3.2:  What do the profiles of NO and O3 look like across these experiments? The lifetime of NO with 200 ppbv O3 is ~0.02s. Similarly, the lifetime of O3 with 1 ppmv NO is ~0.005s.  This will almost certainly impact the interpretation of the results as when NO < O3 most of the NO will react with O3, and ‘average’ NO  seen by peroxy radicals will be much less than initial NO. When NO>O3, O3 is largely titrated by NO, making much less OH available to react with the aldehyde.  When NO and O3 are very similar one may actually maximize total OH production due to recycling of OH from HO2 + OH.  To increase the usefulness of Fig 5, the points need to be normalized by total aldehyde reacting with OH across experiment, and x-axis labeled with ‘average’ NO rather than initial NO (perhaps weighted by [OH] profile).  A kinetic simulation of the experiments will help enable this.

There was an error estimating the lifetimes of O3 and NO in the original comment of referee 2.  The final paragraph should read:

Sect 3.2:  What do the profiles of NO and O3 look like across these experiments? The lifetime of NO with 200 ppbv O3 is ~10s. Similarly, the lifetime of O3 with 1 ppmv NO is ~2s.  This will  impact the interpretation of the results as reactants will significantly change over the course of the experiment. When NO>>O3, O3 will significantly react with NO, making  less OH available to react with the aldehyde.  When NO and O3 are very similar one may actually maximize total OH production due to recycling of OH from HO2 + OH.  To increase the usefulness of Fig 5, the points need to be normalized by total aldehyde reacting with OH across experiment, and x-axis labeled with ‘average’ NO rather than initial NO (perhaps weighted by [OH] profile).  A kinetic simulation of the experiments will help enable this.

References

Shen, H., Vereecken, L., Kang, S., Pullinen, I., Fuchs, H., Zhao, D., and Mentel, T. F.: Unexpected significance of a minor reaction pathway in daytime formation of biogenic highly oxygenated organic compounds, Science advances, 8, eabp8702, 10.1126/sciadv.abp8702, 2022.

Yan, C., Nie, W., Vogel, A. L., Dada, L., Lehtipalo, K., Stolzenburg, D., Wagner, R., Rissanen, M. P., Xiao, M., Ahonen, L., Fischer, L., Rose, C., Bianchi, F., Gordon, H., Simon, M., Heinritzi, M., Garmash, O., Roldin, P., Dias, A., Ye, P., Hofbauer, V., Amorim, A., Bauer, P. S., Bergen, A., Bernhammer, A. K., Breitenlechner, M., Brilke, S., Buchholz, A., Mazon, S. B., Canagaratna, M. R., Chen, X., Ding, A., Dommen, J., Draper, D. C., Duplissy, J., Frege, C., Heyn, C., Guida, R., Hakala, J., Heikkinen, L., Hoyle, C. R., Jokinen, T., Kangasluoma, J., Kirkby, J., Kontkanen, J., Kurten, A., Lawler, M. J., Mai, H., Mathot, S., Mauldin, R. L., Molteni, U., Nichman, L., Nieminen, T., Nowak, J., Ojdanic, A., Onnela, A., Pajunoja, A., Petaja, T., Piel, F., Quelever, L. L. J., Sarnela, N., Schallhart, S., Sengupta, K., Sipila, M., Tome, A., Trostl, J., Vaisanen, O., Wagner, A. C., Ylisirnio, A., Zha, Q., Baltensperger, U., Carslaw, K. S., Curtius, J., Flagan, R. C., Hansel, A., Riipinen, I., Smith, J. N., Virtanen, A., Winkler, P. M., Donahue, N. M., Kerminen, V. M., Kulmala, M., Ehn, M., and Worsnop, D. R.: Size-dependent influence of NO_x on the growth rates of organic aerosol particles, Science Advances, 6, 9, 10.1126/sciadv.aay4945, 2020.