The Characteristics of Raindrop Size Distribution at Windward and Leeward Side over Mountain Area
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper investigates the characteristics of DSD at the windward and leeward side over both mountain and coastal areas, especially with comprehensive methods to reveal the properties for Nw, Dm, Zh and etc., along with the possible reasons to explain the difference among 10 disdrometer sites in various elevations under different precipitation types. This paper is well organized except for some writing issues, and I also have some questions, hope the authors can address them.
Line 78: difficult->difficulty
Line 103: why summer only? what about the winter event and what could be the main difference in DSD characteristics?
Line 207: what do you mean by "remarkable"? can you detail and clarify this? why Nd is not quite different when 1mm<D<3mm in both windward and leeward situations?
Line 212-215: why is this happening? collision and coalescence? please explain the possible reasons.
Line 220: “size” should be “side”
Line 256: why does the ratio greater than 1? downward wind exists?
Line 259-260: agree, but this still can't explain why the ratio >1. any idea?
Line 298-299: this is not consistent with your results, double-check
Line 302: what’s the meaning of “did not affect the slope of the leeward side”?
Line 311-312: not clear, clarify please.
Author Response
Dear Editor and all reviewers,
First of all, we really appreciate for giving us the opportunity to submit the manuscript to MDPI-Remote Sensing and get valuable comments from reviewers so that could improve the quality of the manuscript.
In order to satisfy all reviewers’ comments, the authors tried to correct the manuscript according to the comments. Please refer to the below answers to the comments
In the following, the comments made by the referees appear in black, while our replies are in red, and the proposed modified text in the manuscript is in blue.
We believe our results and discussions should be of interest for readers. We hope your favorable considerations for publication of this paper to Remote Sensing.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Your manuscript requires fixing two main issues before publication. Further, I listed more minor problems, per their line number.
Your study topic and remote sensing – Although you mentioned remote sensing in Lines 50-52, “As such, analysis of the precipitation particle size distribution is an efficient and essential research component for remote sensing and cloud physics.”, it is not clear how remote sensing is contributed to this paper. Please elaborate. Further, please write a paragraph in the Conclusion part to connect your results and remote sensing, as in this form, this paper deal solely with cloud physics and does not belong to remote sensing.
Discussion – You wrote your manuscript with Results and then Conclusions, without Discussion. Although you have a couple of paragraphs where you discuss your results and compare them to other publications, it is in the Conclusions. Please arrange these paragraphs in the Discussion part, and re-write the Conclusion so it will be a summary
Further issues to correct:
Line 63 – You wrote: “According to the study”. The word “the” should be changed to “this”
Lines 79-81 – you describe “previous studies” but there isn’t any citation
Line 119 – Section 2.2 title – please describe what DSD stands for
Lines 130-131 – the sentence ends with: “as the signal-to-noise channels”. What? was too high?
Lines 137-138 – what is “the constant in Equation 2”? if you refer to D, please write it.
Line 157, Eq. 5 - Please describe Dn and dD
Author Response
Dear Editor and all reviewers,
First of all, we really appreciate for giving us the opportunity to submit the manuscript to MDPI-Remote Sensing and get valuable comments from reviewers so that could improve the quality of the manuscript.
In order to satisfy all reviewers’ comments, the authors tried to correct the manuscript according to the comments. Please refer to the below answers to the comments
In the following, the comments made by the referees appear in black, while our replies are in red, and the proposed modified text in the manuscript is in blue.
We believe our results and discussions should be of interest for readers. We hope your favorable considerations for publication of this paper to Remote Sensing.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Review of RS 1721315 is in the attached file, rs_1721315_rev.pdf.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor and all reviewers,
First of all, we really appreciate for giving us the opportunity to submit the manuscript to MDPI-Remote Sensing and get valuable comments from reviewers so that could improve the quality of the manuscript.
In order to satisfy all reviewers’ comments, the authors tried to correct the manuscript according to the comments. Please refer to the below answers to the comments
In the following, the comments made by the referees appear in black, while our replies are in red, and the proposed modified text in the manuscript is in blue.
We believe our results and discussions should be of interest for readers. We hope your favorable considerations for publication of this paper to Remote Sensing.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I think my questions have been properly addressed.
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewer 3 provided a lot of comments and suggestions, and the authors have done significant work to make the revisions. The reviewer appreciates the effort of the authors.
The manuscript is acceptable now. Reviewer 3 recommends publication of it.
