Editor comments for Pierce et al.

You have answered the referee comments well. I have few editorial comments which I list below.

Generally you use lots of parenthesis. This is a style issue that I personally do not like, but I will not push for the change. If a statement is not so important, why mention it at all? If it provides essential information, it should be mentioned without the parenthesis.

Introduction
First paragraph, last sentence: please remove parenthesis and move the last sentence to the middle of paragraph. At the end of a paragraph the most important thought of the paragraph is summarized.

Throughout the text: condensable instead of condensible.

Sect 2.4: the closest

Sect 3.1: 2. paragraph: please use 25% for the survival probability to be consistent with the following paragraph.

“ranged from 0.3% to over 90% with a mean and median of 19% and 7% (the mean is higher than the median due to 2 high outliers, see Figure 3)”

Should those two outliers to be removed from the analysis? Also, why use the biased mean instead of a median in the calculations for the contribution of nucleation to total aerosol budget in the following paragraphs? Reference to Paasonen et al. (2013) might fit here as well.

line 308. period missing.

“With these assumptions, we calculate a N50NPF of 682 cm-3. The mean measured N50 throughout the entire time period was 1686 cm-3.”

Is it reasonable to use so many significant figures? 700 and 1700, respectively.
“Solar radiation drives photochemistry and thus the oxidation of SO2 to form condensible H2SO4 and volatile organic compounds to form condensible organic species.”

ELVOC production from initial ozone reactions (Ehn et al. 2014)

“(3) the condensation sink generally increases with relative humidity due to aerosol water uptake.”

In ambient conditions, yes. This is probably not seen in dry aerosol measurement derived CS.

“Surface pressure anomalies (also the difference of the event-time pressure from the 4-week running mean) also” …

Reduce the number of alsos.

H2SO4 vapor, were the highest…
the H2SO4 proxy is the highest… .. SO2 is the highest…



Figure 2 caption: Note that multiple undefined events may occur on a given undefined event day. Undefined events may also occur on class I or class II event days; however, these are counted as I or II days.


How does this affect the analysis? Particularly 24-h averaged rates? This is not discussed in the text at all.

Figure 4 f) statistical tests are too crowded. g) log-axis for the sulfuric acid proxy?




References
Ehn et al. (2013) A large source of low-volatility secondary organic aerosol, Nature 506, 476–479.
Paasonen et al. (2013) Warming-induced increase in aerosol number concentration likely to moderate climate change, Nature Geosci., 6, 438-442, doi: 10.1038/NGEO1800.

All replies are ok.

I agree that Ehn et al should have cited Pierce et al.

In the figure 2f the figure texts about the statistics are slightly crowded.

In English you are the native speaker, so I will not argue anymore about the articles.