There are too many papers cited as “in preparation”, such as Li et al. on page 3, Wagner et al. on page 3, Roberts at al. on page 4, Santin et al. on page 6, Sekimoto et al. on page 6 and 9. I would strongly recommend removing such references to unpublished papers from the text and rewording the sentences containing theses references accordingly. The practice of citing unpublished work is strongly discouraged by the scientific publishers.

Most writers use a comma after “e.g.” when it is followed by multiple examples. I just confirmed this by reading technical writing books. You may want to inset these commas.

P1, L17: period missing after “Manzanita”

P1, L26: should “EF” be changed to “EFs”?

P1, L30: please reword “are significant emissions previously poorly, or uncharacterized,”

P4, L30: period missing after et al.

P5, L13: “are based” should be “were based”

P5, L14: semicolon needed after the Griffith reference

P5, L35: the readers will not know what is meant by “absorbing gases”. I would be more specific here.

P6, L6: “and emission factors” -> “, emission factors”

P6, L13: “ER-to-CO2 ratios” should be reworded (or fully spelled out as you do on line 16) because ER already contains ratio in it

Equation 1: in my opinion, the use of delta C instead of delta X in the denominator may be confusing because the readers may mistakenly assume that delta C in the denominator is the excess concentration of carbon in a given species (which would make the equation incorrect). But I see that this equation has propagated through multiple uses in previous publications so it is probably OK.

P7, L32: I think it might be worth explaining the usefulness of EF Babs. (It might have been done in previous papers.) My understanding if that that product of EF Babs (in m2/kg) and amount of fuel burned normalized by the volume of air in which the smoke diluted into (in kg/m3) would give you the absorption coefficient for the air containing the smoke. Would it be worth stating this or providing a formula? This can also be done in section 3.4.

P7, L33: “Babs” should contain a subscript

P10, L8: remove extra period

P10, L26: remove extra period

P10, L27 and P13, L26: “U.S” should be “U.S.”

P11, L12 and P13, L10: should there be a space in “EFabs401” to make it consistent with the tables?

P12, L7: period needed after “et al”

Table 1: there are too many significant digits specified for some of the values, such as EFs CO2, CO. The numbers are normally truncated such that the standard deviation has only 1 or 2 significant digit. What is the justification for using 1682.95+/-25.03 instead of 1683+/-25?

Table 1: chemical formulas in the first column should be formatted to include subscripts

Table 2: I have a similar comment on significant digits here. The slopes and intercepts have up to 5 significant digits, and this sort of precision is hard to believe when looking at the data plotted in Figure 2. Are the slope and intercept columns even needed in this table? If you keep them, please explain their meaning in the footnote.

Table 4: Please explain in the footnote what is x and what is y in the equations