Dear Author,

I will accept your manuscript as publication in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics after you have addressed the minor comments below which are mostly technical in nature.

With kindest regards,

Daniel Knopf

Minor comments:
p. 3, l. 10-13: Either here or somewhere after Eq. 3, I suggest to define a_w and a_w,eq. It is not clear what the difference is between these two variables. A sentence may be enough.

p. 21, l. 28: I agree with one of the reviewers that the expressions “correlation” is not quite fitting, although not incorrect either. How about using “empirical formulations/descriptions”? The difference compared to your work is still clear. See also caption of Fig. 3.

p. 23, l. 11: I suggest to omit “Such predictions are mistaken.”. No further need for this. The subsequent points speak for themselves.

Technical correction:
p. 7, l. 1: Change “ins” to “is”.
p. 9, l. 12: Maybe: “with the probability”.
p. 9, l. 14: “equal to the work”.
p. 10, l. 28 and p. 11, l. 3: Maybe instead of “pass by”, “pass through”?
p. 11, l. 23: Omit one “in”.
p. 14, l. 18: Change “th” to “the”.
p. 19, l. 18” “carried the measurements out at”.
p. 20, l. 6: Change “off” to “of”.

Fig. 1: The fonts for the transient states are difficult to read. Maybe Arial would be better than Times Roman.

Fig. 2: The lines in the legend are not unambiguously identifiable in the plot. E.g., where is the dotted line?

Dear Author,

I am happy to accept your manuscript for publication in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

With kindest regards,

Daniel Knopf