The revised manuscript responds adequately to the reviewers comments, but my impression is that the topic of scaling the BB emission could be further improved. The conclusion section has a nice discussion of the scaling factor and how this relates to the adopted OM/OC ratio. My recommendation would be to describe earlier in the manuscript how your scaling relates to the OM/OC ratio as well as the chemical composition. In the AOD comparison an almost as good agreement between the model and observations could have been achieved using an OM/OC ratio in the upper end of published values without any scaling of emissions. However, the BC fraction would be much lower in the model when enhancing the OM/OC ratio. For a further discussion of the OM/OC ratio I would recommend Polidori et al (2008).

The abstract could also benefit from including the perspective that improved knowledge from measurements is needed on the variability in the primary BB emissions of OC/BC ratio as well as OM/OC ratio. A scaling of emissions may not be needed if this information is improved along with secondary organic formation. In this respect I would recommend to rephrase the sentence ‘Finally, good agreement between observed and modelled AOD was gained only after scaling up GFED3 emissions …’.

Thanks for the nice response and modification to the manuscript. I noted two minor spelling errors in the modified text:
1) First new sentence in abstract: 'been' is missing after 'have' and before 'achieved'
2) First new sentence in section 2.3.1: Change 'substantial reduced the ...' to 'substantially reduced if the ...'