The revised version of the manuscript addresses most, but not all, of the comments from three reviewers, and one public comment. Overall there is consensus that the work is generally of high quality, and should ultimately be published. The authors are asked to provide revised files that address the following minor revisions. The Editor may decide to consult with reviewers, if needed, but the revisions are deemed straightforward. They aim to maximize transparently about sources of systematic bias, and the uncertainty over a wide range of temperatures for atmospheric modeling in air.

Minor revisions:

1) The authors agree with the error identified in their analysis of literature spectra noted in Frank Winiberg's comment. This error has been corrected, and does not affect the presented data or analysis, as the authors note. However, it is relevant since the implication of the smaller differences to the NO2 literature data suggest that it is unlikely the only cause for the differences in rate constants determined here and earlier by Mollner etal 2010. As reviewer #3 correctly points out, "there are other possible sources of systematic error that affect the rate constant determinations although these are not particularly obvious."

The current response to reviewer #3 focuses exclusively on NO2 calibrations. The response on this important point is certainly appropriate, but the lengthy discussion dilutes somewhat the broader point. In particular, the authors did not respond to reviewer #3's broader point: what other sources of systematic bias could there be? Please add a paragraph, ideally supported by a Table, that constructs a comprehensive error budget of the present work as it relates to air (!).

Related to this, reviewer #2 notes the need for "corrections for the lower third body efficiency in air". As the authors point out this correction is small at 293K. Is it a source of systematic bias in air? The temperature dependence is not well known. How much of an effect is expected at other temperatures?

Please make an effort to provide a concise summary to make systematic bias related to atmospheric use in air explicit.

2) Reviewer #1 writes: ... the manuscript states “We additionally carried out some experiments at a lower repetition rate to ruleout any influence of product build-up on the measured rate coefficient.” I would like the authors to document these experiments (at least in the Supplementary Information). (end quote)

The response to this by the authors appears to be missing. At least from the provided files it is unclear if changes to the Supplementary Information have been made. Please add the requested information.

3) Reviewer #2 writes: For use in atmospheric models "corrections for the lower third body efficiency in air, and the HNO3 branching ratio need to be taken into account. This should be stated explicitly in the manuscript."

The authors responses acknowledge that questions about HOONO vs HNO3 branching ratios are beyond the scope of this paper, but this should also be stated in the final manuscript. Please add in the introduction on page 2, line 12 "...HOONO [, which are beyond the scope of this study]."

The comment from reviewer #2 also relates to the paragraph on "Sources of systematic bias and atmospheric implications" to be added in the discussion (see above point #1).

The responses to the remaining (minor) issues are appropriate, and changes have been implemented that address these issues. The manuscript is ready for publication in ACP.

Congratulations on this carefully executed laboratory study!