Please incorporate several technical/editorial type corrections (below) that I think will improve the manuscript.

Page 17, Lines 31-32: Can the soil dust erosion and resuspension idea be supported with a wind/PM10 relationship or correlation?


Editorial:
Page 2, Line 12, Line 19: the “2.5” in PM2.5 is not subscripted here but is elsewhere in the manuscript. At other places in the manuscript, the number is not subscripted again. My personal preference is subscript, but I will defer to the authors so long as you are consistent.
Page 6, Line 12: “firstly” should be capitalized.
Page 6, Line 16: “this” should be “these” because it is referring to the plural “questions”
Page 6, Line 19: summarized is spelled incorrectly
Page 6, Paragraph from Lin 12-19: the authors interchangeable use the past and present tense. The tense should be consistent in the paragraph and throughout the manuscript.
Page 13, Line 29: I think there is a typo or word missing in “….and stay above 2 m/s also nighttime”
Page 17, Line 1: “onnnly” is spelled incorrectly and the 2nd “only” in the sentence should be removed
Page 17, Line 5: I suggest changing “not well” to “poorly”
Page 17, Line 7: is this the wind speed at 10m? If so, I suggest writing “wind speed at 10m is overestimated …”
Page 17, Line 10: please define RMSE
Page 17, Line 14: please remove “quite”
Page 17, Line 16: I suggest rephrasing for clarity from “…does not show a tendency neither to underestimation nor to overestimation, while ….” to “…does not show a tendency to underestimate nor to overestimate, while ….”
Page 17, Line 28: change “leans” to “lends”
Page 18, Line 11: can “smooth trend” be described more quantitatively? Do the authors mean there is little variability?
Page 18, Line 31: “however, in first…” should be changed to “however, a first…”
Page 20, Line 5: Can the authors describe the “peculiar” profile in less colloquial terms? Is it that the vertical profile is substantially different, driven primarily by aloft concentrations, compared to other species?
Page 20, Line 19: The sentence would be easier to read if “emission” was before “and” or move “and” to after “dry deposition”
Page 20, Line 21: change “will not be shown” to “are not shown”.
Page 21, Line 4: “Similarly” should be “similar”
Page 22, Line 18: “…so far reveals of a complex …” Please remove the “of”
Table 1. There are numbers in 2 columns. It’s not clear they are supposed to be there. If they are intentional, more explanation is needed.
Table 2. There are numbers in 2 columns. It’s not clear they are supposed to be there. If they are intentional, more explanation is needed.
Figure 5. Only one set of observations is listed in the legend Please list both.
Figure 6. Please put a note in the caption that the color/mass concentrations scales are by approximately a factor 2. Also please define the white dotted line the caption and explain if it modeled or empirical.
Figure 8. Are the WRF levels really defined by elevation in meters, or is it a pressure definition? Please define the depth of the model’s surface layer.