Seamless Modeling of Direct and Indirect Aerosol Effects during April 2020 Wildfire Episode in Ukraine
, Valeriia Rybchynska 1,2, Alexander Mahura 3, Roman Nuterman 4, Alexander Baklanov 4,5, Markku Kulmala 3 and Tuukka Petäjä 3,*
Manu Thomas
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The language has improved a lot. But, I have made some suggestions in the comments to further improve the manuscript by minor changes in some words that are used throughout the manuscript. For example, using alternate word such as 'agreement' instead of 'acceptance'; 'poorer' or 'less significant' instead of 'worse'. Hope these help.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are grateful for your constructive and useful comments, suggestions and corrections. We incorporate all of them. Please, find attached file with our response.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy comments are provided in the attached pdf.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
There needs to be significant changes to the language of the draft. The current version has several errors with grammar and sentence structure.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your constructive and useful comments and suggestions. Please, find the attached file with our response.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed most of my comments. I would recommend publication after the minor change below:
A slight correction needs to be made to the terminology used in the paper. The author's response cites that ppb is consistently used in other papers while describing aerosol mass mixing ratios, but most of the examples they provided represent MMR in units of mass/mass. While it would seem that the two are equivalent, there is a notable difference. ppb implies that the two quantities being compared are homogeneous, which is not the case when comparing solid/liquid particles to gaseous air. I would suggest that the authors change the terminology to either state ppbm everywhere or ug/kg for the representation to be accurate.
I do not believe that another round of review is warranted after this change is made.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of English has significantly improved in the current draft of the manuscript. Minor edits are still required which can be corrected during the proof stage.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We have corrected all the suggested comments. In the last version of the manuscript, we used ppbm instead of ppb, and corrected the axes caption in figures 7 and B1. Also, we proofread one more time and corrected English grammar.
All the changes are visible in the file with "track changes" mode.
Sincerely, authors
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
The quality of the language used in writing this article is not good. It is difficult to comprehend the intended message of the authors. I recommend a complete revision by a native speaker for a significant improvement.
Author Response
Please find our response in the attached file
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy comments are detailed in the attached pdf.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The document needs to be proofread to improve punctuation and minor errors in sentence structure. Some areas of improvement are detailed in my comments.
Author Response
Please find our response in the attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
