Dear authors,

The new version you submitted answered many questions raised by the reviewers. Could you please answer the remaining remarks from reviewer #1 from the second review? They are given below:

"I am pleased to see that the manuscript has been substantially improved.

It is now of more general interest than the previous version (...). Some further comments/suggestions regarding the revised version, and the answers to my initial review are given below.


• "Additional formation of BSOA from O3 and NO3 is taking into account following the same approach as in Murphy and Pandis, 2009 (Menut et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2015, 2013)."

This is still unclear to me. As far as I can see, none of the four references provide details about the SOA yields from the O3 and NO3-reactions of the VOCs. It is also a bit confusing to give four different references here – please stick to the one closest to your present implementation (I guess this would mean Zhang et al., 2013), in addition to the original Murphy and Pandis, 2009.

As far as I can see, the Zhang et al., 2013 study only used "low-NOx"-yields for all SOA-formation – is this true also for the present study? Or did you use different low-NOx and high-NOx yields depending on the NOx/VOC levels?

To make all these things clear, I suggest that you add a Table in the Supplement that gives the VBS-yields for the different SOA-precursors (isoprene, MT, SQT and the relevant AVOCs), and specify for which oxidants the yields are used – please also include information about low-NOx and high-NOx conditions in the table (if different yields are used for different conditions).


• Q: How was the deposition of gas-phase SVOCs treated in the different model simulations? A: For this applications, SVOCs wet depositions were kept identical among all the different simulations, i.e., the model does not account for the volatility dependence of the Henry’s law water solubility coefficients. We added this additional information at page 6, line 180 of the revised manuscript as below. “No volatility dependence of the Henry’s law water solubility coefficients is included.”

What about dry deposition? How did you treat dry deposition of gas-phase SVOCs?


• We additionally compared model data against organic carbon (OC) measurements as available from 15 additional EBAS sites (Table S1) and at different time resolution (from 1 day to 1 week). Since the model uses the organic aerosol (OA) mass concentration in its own calculations, we applied the OA/OC ratio as in Bergström et al., 2012.

This is unclear. Does the model track both OC and OM? If it only tracks OM – which OM/OC ratio(s) do you apply for the comparison to the OC-measurements? A single ratio for all types of OA? Or did you use different ratios for different types of SOA and POA?


• Extremely low OA concentrations are missed by the model (Figure 9). The latest might suggest uncertainties in the background OA fields used in the model and/or in the concentrations injected at the very boundaries of the coarser domain (i.e., long-range transport).

I think this is still confusingly formulated – do you mean that the model produces too low OA concentrations during periods with low measured OA? That is, that the model tends to underestimate OA for these periods? If so, perhaps you could write something like: The model tends to underestimate OA at Hyytiälä, especially during periods with low measured concentrations. Also, I think that the start of the second sentence “The latest” should be changed to “This”.


Additional technical corrections:

Line 469: CAM -> CAMS

Figure 10 caption; Add information that the comparison for the ebas sites is for OC: “and OC at available EBAS sites”

Figure 12 caption: Add information that the results are for the SMEAR-II site

The Menut et al. (2021) reference should be updated to the final published version of the article (the manuscript version refers to the preprint)."