See comments by reviewer. I'm hoping hese should be very simple to address.

I think perhaps the authors have misunderstood the reviewer's comments; there is nothing incorrect in what is shown, however there are minor issues of emphasis in what is presented. However, as these modifications are relatively trivial and do not impact on the overall science of what is being presented, I have marked these as 'technical corrections' that the authors should address before final submission.

1. The point that I think the reviewer is making concerning 532nm isn't that the work should take place (which it clearly has), but that it may make sense to refer to the Eabs values at this wavelength more, specifically in the abstract and conclusions, for the sake of comparability with the previous literature and relevance to the peak in the solar spectrum. Currently the main emphasis is placed on 350nm, but I would suggest also referring to 532nm.

2. Regarding the reviewer's point about the Eabs value of 5.4, the way the abstract is currently worded ("Eabs can reach approximately 5.4"), this implies that this is a maximum value, however an inspection of figure 11 would indicate that even larger Eabs values could be reached if greater MR values had been modelled. I am not suggesting that further modelling take place, but it should be made clearer, particularly in the abstract, that the value could be even greater than 5.4 at higher MR values.

As a further technical point, I note that the authors have been denoting microns as 'um', but it is far more professional to use 'µm'. The authors should change this throughout before submitting their final version.