Thanks for your detailed revision that significantly improves the manuscript, that I accept for publication. Please note the following technical corrections:

Abstract:
-“ChArMEx” is the appropriate writing (check also legend of Fig. 6).
-Please reconsider the sentence between lines 40 and 45 “Optimized contributions computed with the observations show that if natural sources as mineral dust and fire events are particularly difficult to estimate, they was [were] responsible exclusively for 35.9% and 0.7%[,] respectively[,] of the exceedances for PM10 during the summer of 2012.” Explain first in a separate sentence what you mean with “Optimized contributions computed with the observations”.

Conclusion:
-in 1st sentence, reject “over Europe and the Mediterranean region” at the end of the sentence.
-line 967: change “Therefore” by “For this,”.
-line 976: “there are fewer”.
-line 976-977: “which thus is difficult to evaluated in terms of surface PM concentrations” is uncorrect and it is unclear to what refers the “which”.
-line 985, 1008 and possibly other instances: add a comma before “respectively”.
-line 995: “strongly by local sources” unclear?
-line 1023: remove “on”.
-line 1030: “are closer”.
-line 1032: specify “than coarse ones”.
-line 1038: add a space after the dot.
-line 1047:

Acknowledgement:
Please add an acknowledgement to ChArMEx data PIs hat you used, namely Wani Tamas for the Venaco station, and José Nicolas from the Ersa station.