to Anonymous Referee #1

Comments and suggestions: Overall Comments. Heterogeneous and multiphase reactions in the atmosphere can affect the formation and transformation of pollutants and determine the composition of gases and aerosol. Kinetic study is used to evaluate the impact of heterogeneous and multiphase reactions on the atmosphere environment. This manuscript developed a method to measure gas uptake coefficients, explained the principle of the method in detail and evaluated the measurement results. This study has made a good attempt; however, some concerns still remain. So, I think it needs some revisions before publication. Responses and Revisions:

Starting at line 416 (new line 467,Section 3.2,Research Gaps), given that hydropower assets take up a large share of global renewable energy capacity (IRENA, 2023), a new sentence is added to highlight the importance of focusing on hydropower assets amongst other ageing engineered assets: "Ageing hydropower assets must be prioritised amongst them, taking the highest (41%) capacity share of global renewable energy sources (IRENA, 2023), the largest green economy sector of this study." A new subsection (4.1, Future work) has been added under Section 4,Conclusion. Subsequently, have now been moved under this subsection.Within this subsection, a new paragraph starting after sentence ending line 431 (new lines 508 -515) summarises the importance of focusing on the key aforementioned asset groups in future work: "In the short-term, future quantitative assessments by researchers should prioritize established engineered assets that are experiencing rapid market growth, particularly solar PV and onshore wind installations.While these assets incorporate site conditions in their design standards, lower initial investment costs and the decreasing availability of optimal locations, may result in reduced due diligence during the planning stage, shifting greater risk to insurers.Additionally, with the changing climate, it is crucial to prioritise ageing hydropower assets in research efforts due to their extensive global presence and the potential risks associated with their long-term operation.Simultaneously, natural assets urgently require the development of vulnerability models that are tailored to specific locations and species, ensuring their capacity to mitigate the impacts of climate change effectively." The aforementioned addition, in part responds to Anonymous Reviewer #2 (R2.8 and R2.10).
Main points of consideration R1.3.The paper does not currently distinguish between direct damage to infrastructure versus losses due to reductions in performance.Both are discussed throughout, but it is not made clear how insurance contracts typically work in this context, if they only generally cover direct damage, or if there is usually cover for performance, or if it is context dependent.Additional context would be useful to understand where the main gaps are, and which are most relevant for insurance markets.
As an example, it is noted that quantitative studies were found for 4% of the intersections, but it would be useful to have a sense of what share of the value this represents.
Author Response: To address this comment we have added a section starting at line 171 Section 2.3,Step 3: Vulnerability assessment) with an additional reference to Rose and Huyck (2016), to provide more context: "Functional loss is a broad term covering both performance reduction and direct damage, commonly referred to as business interruption and property damage respectively in insurance contracts, where they are generally covered.Vulnerability to functional loss in this paper does not specifically distinguish between business interruption and property damage, as the two are closely linked, with business interruption commonly resulting from property damage and the subsequent recovery process (Rose and Huyck, 2016).Consequently, the existing literature rarely provides sufficient detail on the contribution of each to the overall losses observed." We decided to highlight the lack of literature focussing on business interruption or performancebased losses, within the 4% of intersections with quantitative studies.The sentence starting line 220 (now line 249, Section 3, Results) now reads: "Quantitative studies were found for only 4% of the total number of intersections corresponding to 18 assets, with the vast majority being fragility (or physical vulnerability) functions focussing on property damage." And sentence starting line 391 (now line 437, Section 3.

2, Research gaps) now reads:
"There is a clear lack of research that presents quantitatively the likely loss of function of green economy assets under natural hazards, and in particular functions assessing indirect business interruption losses." R1.4.While insurance is one way to prevent losses from climate-related damage, there may also be adaptation measures that can be taken to reduce or eliminate losses.For example, the authors note that flywheels operating in dust storms have not been researched, however, there may be low cost ways to protect flywheels from the effects of these storms.Other adaptations may be more costly, such as shielding solar PV from hail damage, in which case insurance may be the better way to reduce risks.While the authors do not need to conduct an analysis of the potential for adaptation in each case, there should be some discussion of how this may factor into the analysis of which combinations are plausible.It may also be reasonable to ignore this possibility, but then this assumption should be stated.
Author Response: Thank you for mentioning the importance of adaptation measures and mitigation technologies.The vulnerability assessment conducted in this study considers a generalised asset that is not site-specific and is in as-built condition.Therefore adaptation and mitigation measures are specifically not considered.This is clarified through an additional statement starting at line 176 (now lines 201 -203, Section 2.3, Step 3: Vulnerability assessment): "In this assessment assets are generalised, and adaptation measures or mitigation technologies are not considered, unless literature mentions them as a minimum requirement.Therefore the worst-case vulnerability rating is provided in the matrix." We do however acknowledge that this assumption is an inherent limitation of the study, and address this as an area for future work in the new sentence starting at line 428 (now line 502, Section 4.1, Future work): "This includes the impact of common mitigation technologies and adaptation measures on assets assessed as high vulnerability." R1.5.Relatedly, it is noted that volcanic risks for example are generally avoided by prohibiting development nearby.This would seem to raise some ambiguity as to whether these risks are then "Unknown" or "Not Applicable."It would help to have some guidance on how this ambiguity is resolved.
Author Response: Thank you for highlighting this ambiguity.Our assessment of vulnerability for volcanic (pyroclastic and lahar) hazards does align with the criteria mentioned in Section 2.3, Step 3: Vulnerability assessment.Given the limited availability of insurance products for the hazards, the potential for geographical coexistence is implied, and an "NA" rating cannot be applied.A reasonable judgement can also be made using the limited literature available, and literature related to other assets, hence an "Unknown" rating was not given.We acknowledge that this was not clearly explained, and therefore we have made the following amendments in lines 316 -319 (now lines 351 -358, Section 3.1.1,Volcanic hazards), which includes new references to DCCA Hawaii Insurance Division ( 2023) and Aspinall et al. (2011): "Due to their destructive nature and geographic constraints, areas prone to these hazards generally see limited engineered or industrial construction.This is often enforced through restrictions in private and state insurance coverage, as seen by AXA Group.Consequently, this lack of exposure results in a scarcity of damage observations and research on terrestrial engineered assets in volcanic regions.Despite the limited availability of insurance products for these hazards (e.g.DCCA Hawaii Insurance Division ( 2023)), this study reasonably assesses vulnerability by drawing on literature related to other assets (e.g.Aspinall et al. (2011)).If impacted, most terrestrial assets would be highly vulnerable to these hazards, thus they are assigned a high vulnerability rating (MHV)."

Minor Comments
R1.6.At the top of page 2, it is highlighted that the expansion of green assets presents an opportunity for insurers, but it could also be noted that the provision of insurance may help to encourage the further expansion of green assets.It may be useful to have an estimate of the total size of the green asset market that may be insurable, to give an overall sense of scale.

Author Response: Thank you for your comment on this. The sentence starting on line 35 (now line 38) has been amended to note that the provision of insurance encourages the expansion of green asset deployment:
"This is particularly critical as insurance plays a pivotal role in enhancing resilience and the expanding green asset deployment, especially considering that they are increasingly being established in more hazard-prone regions due to land-use pressures (GCube Underwriting, 2021)." The sentence starting on Line 26 gives the size of the green asset market that might be insurable.
For clarity and to give a better sense of scale, we can expand on the definition of decarbonisation and renewable energy technologies, specified that insurance premiums are only for capital expenditures, and provided an additional estimate of the green economy's extent from FTSE Russell ( 2023) as its definition varies with literature source.Lines 26 -29 (now lines 26 -32) now read: "FTSE Russell ( 2023) estimates the green economy to be the fourth largest standalone sector in the global stock markets, with a US$6.5 trillion value.Additionally, green buildings in emerging market cities present a US$24.7 trillion investment opportunity (IFC, 2019), while electric vehicles are projected to account for 35% of the global car market (IEA, 2023).According to McKinsey (2022), global investments in decarbonisation (e.g.carbon capture and storage, as well as electric vehicle charging) and renewable energy (e.g.solar power, as well as onshore and offshore wind) technologies could reach US$800 billion per year by 2030, which corresponds to insurance premiums of US$10-15 billion per year on capital expenditures alone." The aforementioned addition also responds to Anonymous Reviewer #2 (R2.2).
R1.7.The rules for the inclusion of assets are not entirely clear.For example, it seems that pumped hydro storage could fit into the category of energy storage infrastructure along with electric batteries and hydrogen, but is not included.This is similar for the exclusion of new buildings that are not mass timber.

Author Response:
Thank you for your comment regarding the clarity of asset inclusion criteria.We have added further clarity regarding how we developed this initial version of a green asset taxonomy, in the context that there is no operational taxonomy available for the insurance sector.
A  Government, 2021).Each asset is defined at a level that can be priced and is practical for the insurance industry, and includes assets currently being insured.In total, 37 assets are identified and described in detail (see Table A1)." The aforementioned addition, in part responds to Anonymous Reviewer #2 (R2.4).
We agree that this initial version of an asset-hazard taxonomy is in need of expansion and standardisation.We have highlighted that this must be done with inputs from the wider insurance industry, and have added this in a new paragraph inserted before line 427 (new lines 498 -499, Section 4.1, Future work): "To support this, the operational asset-hazard taxonomy proposed in this study is in need of expansion and standardisation with inputs from the wider insurance industry." The aforementioned addition, in part responds to Anonymous Reviewer #2 (R2.8).
R1.8.In Table 1, there is no need for 3 separate columns under CL2.Tiers 2-4 all fall under CL2, they can be in the same column.The additional columns may create confusion.
because it is a new and emerging sector.Presumably they could conduct their own studies as well, if there is a potential market in a given sector.
Author Response: Thank you for your comments.As suggested we have added an additional discussion, in the conclusion.It is important to note that the insurance industry typically does not rely on scientific research, when sufficient historical loss data is available.We addressed this point in a new addition before line 422 Section 4,Conclusion), within the same paragraph: "Assessing the vulnerability of green assets under natural hazards is a significant challenge for the insurance industry.As an emerging sector, the green economy lacks historical loss data, which traditional insurance models depend on.In such cases, insurers may use scenarios analyses based on a combination of published engineering models and internal expert judgement.In this context, the study assessed the potential of using existing, published literature to support the development of these models."