Dear authors,

thanks for the replies and the revised manuscript.

I think the modifications applied to the manuscript do address the main
concerns. Nevertheless, I ask the author to correct few inconsistencies/errors
present in the revised manuscript before publication:

*) page 8, line 25 : "Table 1" should be "Table 3"
*) Page 9, line 14-16: "In summary, for models M11, M12, and M14, the model performance [...] is
characterized by a close relationship with either the overestimation or underestimation of
atmospheric concentration," . This sentence is not clear and should be rewritten.
What means close relationship?
*) Page 10, line 20-21 : "Models M2, M4, M5, and M6 showed underestimation, whereas models
M1, M11, M12, M13, and M14 showed overestimation". Which underestimation? Atmospheric
concentration or wet deposited concentrations? As both informations are present in the table and
figure, the text should be more precise.
*) Page 10, line 27 : "Another companion paper ..." . Which one? Please cite.
*) Page 11, line 2 : "the relationship between the wet deposition of N and the atmospheric concentration
of was not obvious different from this relationship for S." The sentence is missing some words.
"Of" what? Please rewrite the sentence to make it understandable.
*) Page 12, line 11 : "close". Maybe the authors meant "inverse".
*) Page 19, line 20 : "close". Maybe you meant "strong inverse" (see previous point).
*) Page 19, line 22 : Please remove the sentence "The general
features for underestimation of wet deposition of A and overestimation of atmospheric
concentration of A were clarified."
*) Page 13, line 17 : As we have seen [...], the underestimation (overestimation) of wet deposition
could be related to the overestimation (underestimation) of atmospheric concentration, and
these could be found as dry deposition". This sentence should be revised as not very clear. What do
you mean with "these could be found as dry deposition" ?

Thanks and best regards,

Andrea Pozzer