Although the authors have addressed the major scientific issues raised by the referees, the paper is technically not yet ready to be accepted for publication. The language of the papers requires major improvements, and should be finally checked out by a native English speaker. My specific comments in this regard are the following:

First, the use of tense, articles and prepositions needs to be checked out and corrected throughout the paper.

Second, there are a number of sentences that are either too long or complicated, or unclear parts, which makes them difficult for the readers. Especially, such sentences can be found on lines 92-93, 107-110, 127-131, 138-141, 164-166 (one cannot say was observed reduction 89%), 180-183 (check out how to write dates), 188-192, 205-209, 234-236, 245-251, 263-268, 285-288, 300-302, 307-308, 320-322, 332-334, 341-343, 348-349, 371-373, 383-384, 398-402, 418-420.

Third, the paper needs to list proper scientific aim(s). What is written on lines 79-82 does not motivate to read this paper in more detail.


Other comments:

There should be a space between the number and unit when given values for quantities

Line 121: … Hong’s studies: papers cannot be cited like this

I am not sure the authors use correctly the term “trend” on page 10 and later in the text.

Line 231: should it be …overprediction of the temperature ... rather than … temperature positive errors

Line 259: PM2.5 center of… does not sound a right way to express this

The authors have re-revised the paper and it is acceptable for publication now. I have only 1 remaining technical issue:

In abstract and text, two ackronym forms of turbulent diffusion coefficient appear: DC and DTD. This does not sound correct to me. Please correct if relevant.

Editor