I believe the authors have adequately and humbly addressed all reviewer concerns. I have two thoughts for consideration.

1. The abstract does not get to the meat of the study until Line 7. I suggest reducing the two opening sentences to 1 smaller sentence to bring the reader to the point quickly.

2. I am skeptical that future studies would use such an algorithm to identify fuel types, except for maybe very complex fires where we also have the necessary measurements (highly speciated VOC data is rare, and missions like FIREX don't happen often). And, vegetation/land cover maps can be quite detailed. I echo Reviewer 3's comment that the reverse might be more useful, although to my knowledge fire emission inventories don't have the ability to speciate at this level (e.g., "mixed conifer" might be their fuel category). As a follow-up, you might consider if the differences in emissions lead to differences in downwind chemistry (ozone, SOA, etc.) that warrant greater speciation in a model. Do we really care if it's a Lodgepole or Ponderosa Pine? Perhaps others have explored this . . . I'm just throwing spaghetti on the wall here.