Dear Anna Nikandrova et al,

The reviewers have evaluated your response and your revised manuscript and are generally satisfied with it. A few more minor comments should be addressed (see comments by reviewer 1 and 3 in addition to my comments below) before it can be published in ACP.

- Reply to reviewer 1: Please add the information on the Rayleigh-Mie split and the size cut of the inlet to the manuscript.
- Add ”e.g.” in the citation parenthesis when referencing with only a limited and selective amount of literature (e.g. on the health effects on page 1 or on the general aerosol-cloud discussion on page 2).
- Page 2, line 18 -19: Add relevant reference.
- Page 3, line 13: Please fix the correct reference here.
- Page 3, line 27: Here and throughout the manuscript, please use the correct abbreviations (e.g. ”Sect.”, see https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/for_authors/manuscript_preparation.html)
- Page 4, line 3: Add the degree and minute signs to the geographic location.
- Page 4, line 29: Remove the dot after “see”.
- Page 5, line 8: Please precise if this is relative or absolute accuracy in RH.
- Page 5, line 12: Remove comma before 2014.
- Page 5, last sentences: The correction with respect to particle hygroscopicity is not really clear. Please specify, if you have used one growth factor distribution (as a function of RH and dry diameter) for the entire campaign or if not, what exactly you have done. If you have used one fixed GF-parameterization, I would also recommend to mention GF at RH=90% for one example dry diameter. This may facilitate further interpretation.
- Page 7, line 7: “Fig.” (see comment above).
- Page 10, Line 15: Please rephrase the last sentence, stating that the upper layer may have been influenced from mixing with layers above the maximum altitude.
- Page 11, line 17: Please reference correctly to the corresponding figure or remove the sentence if not needed.
- The conclusion needs some further refinement. Please remove repetitions (especially technical information) which are already mentioned in the sections before (e.g. that trajectories were calculated every 50 m or the technical details in the first paragraph) and focus on the main findings. I would also recommend to rephrase the last sentence of your conclusions since the current sentence states a very obvious fact (and not a new finding) that more information will give more confidence in the determination of air mass origin. As it currently reads, this last sentence could be interpreted as your main finding.

(Page numbers refer to the revised manuscript.)

Kind regards

Paul.

Dear Anna Nikandrova et al,

Thanks for the revised manuscript.

I agree with reviewer #3 that a scale info of the RH profiles should be added to Fig. 1. It is not easily clear if these are large RH changes or not. Maybe add a small scale to the upper part of the figure or add (exemplarily) min/max-values.

The last comment of reviewer #3 raises the question if you have enough scans to actually calculate mean size distributions. If it is only one scan, it might not hold the argumentation made. Maybe mark them with a different color (e.g. grey) and discuss that the interpretation for this size range is limited due to insufficient data.

One last comment on the figures in general: Please make sure that the font size of the figures is approx. equal to the font size of the caption. Some of the figures (e.g. 3, 4, 9) have really font sizes and will be difficult to read in the printed version later on.

Thanks and kind regards

Paul.

Dear Anna Nikandrova et al.,

Thank you for the last changes. I'm happy to accept your manuscript for final publication in ACP.

Kind regards

Paul.