Thank you for your careful responses to the referee comments. The revised manuscript has been sufficiently revised in many areas, is improved, and overall is nearly ready for publication.

I wanted to get some feedback from a subset of the referees as to their opinions on whether the revisions were sufficient. So in order to save time I initiated an email discussion on several specific points instead of sending for another full round of review. In particular the revised discussion of particle scavenging is not yet convincing. Rather than engaging in a protracted discussion, the referees suggested a softening of the stated confidence related to the statements made about particle scavenging, as suggested below. Overall the collective opinion is that the revision is worthy of publication. However, there are a few additional comments that we would like to see before the manuscript is accepted. These points are listed briefly below:

- Figure 2: Separate sea salt and biological particles into separate sub-plots, because the bottom panel is somewhat misleading as currently formulated.
- Figure 4: Both (a) and (b) panels contain multiple y-axes, but the lack of legend makes the plots difficult to understand quickly for readers unfamiliar with these plots. In some way make the interpretation of separate traces/bars unambiguous. For example, please either: (i) add a legend, or (ii) change the color of the vertical axes to match the color of the plots.
- Line 94: Change to “while Pratt et al. (2009) observed biological IN in ice residues from one orographic cloud via in situ aircraft measurements.”
- Line 213: The mass spectra of the atomization samples were interpreted manually. Were they also run through the same algorithm as the ambient samples to see if the results were consistent? There could be a bias in particle assignment between the fundamentally different methods. If the double-check was performed, please mention this fact. If not, please state this as a possible interpretation bias.
- Line 382-385: The correlation between cloud top height and %Dust+Bio is not convincing as currently plotted. Please add a correlation plot associated with this correlation in an online supplement. It would also be worthwhile to include similar plots for other important correlations for which you report Spearman’s coefficients (e.g. Line 353).
- Line 279: Change “we cannot determine with great certainty” to “we cannot determine directly”
- Line 297: Change “suggests” to “may suggest”
- Line 355: Change “would” to “might”

When uploading the next manuscript revision please include a version showing changes tracked from this version so that I can see the edits and make a decision more quickly.

Thank you for your submission to ACPD.

Regards,

Alex Huffman

Thank you for your detailed revisions in response to the referee comments. I find the paper ready to publish. Congratulations on acceptance of your paper, and thank you for choosing to publish with Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

Best regards,

Alex Huffman