Thank you for revising your manuscript to address the referees’ questions and comments. Your paper can now be accepted for publication in ACP.

I did notice a few small corrections and typos that should be corrected first, listed below. There also remains one important issue that I feel could be better addressed.

The timing of the GC-MS sample collection relative to the entire burn event is important, yet it is difficult to understand what the GC-MS sampling strategy was. In Section 3.1 you discuss the temporal burn profiles. This would be a good place to also discuss how you approached the timing of the GC-MS sample(s) collection. Later on line 373 you state ‘the discrete ERs measured by the GC-MS may be biased by the sample acquisition times which typically occurred within the first-half of a 
laboratory burn when emissions for most gases generally “peaked”.’ From this and some other later statements I conclude that the GC-MS samples were mostly collected during the first half of the burn, but after the initial flaming combustion phase. Can you please explicitly clarify this in the text? You could also mention in the text in Section 3.1 that the timing of the GC-MS sample collection is shown in Figure 1, and discuss if this represents a typical sampling strategy.

Line 80: “NO_x” should be subscript
Line 90: Inputs
Line 101: “ER” is now used before it is defined for the first time later on on Line 117.
Line 257: Typo? “ERs that represent to…”
Line 261: flaming combustion?
Lines 290 & 292: Should “k_OH” be italicized for consistency?
Line 396: Typo – “These compounds have significant portion of”
Line 473: “less than 8% of the total measured.” – total measured what?
Line 561: Should be “such as styrene”?
Figure 1 Caption: NO_x should be italicized

There’s no need to submit a reply to my comments, you can just make these changes before you submit your final manuscript files for publication.

Ryan Sullivan