Dear Authors,

you have replied well to the points raised by the referees. However, there are few cases that require still some work.

Ref 1:
comment #5: The proper term is "electrical equivalent mobility".

comment #6: There are work done in this issue, e.g. Chen et al. (2013) Dynamic variations of ultrafine, fine and coarse particles at the Lu-Lin background site in East Asia, Atmos. Environ. 78, 154–162.

comment # 15: Banana curve is not a proper wording in scientific litterature to describe new particle formation and subsequent growth. Please modify the text.

comment # 25: Also refer here to the review article of Kulmala et al. (2004). The results are within typical values observed in the troposphere.

comment # 26: For sulfuric acid proxy from UV*SO2 / CS, you can refer to Petäjä et al. (2009) Sulfuric acid and OH concentrations in a boreal forest site, Atmos. Chem. Phys. 9, 7435–7448. There is also a conversion factor to convert the proxy to a real concentration.

Technical comments:

abstract: line 23: ... with a peak level ...
line 29: sentence: The PSD information ... is not well formulated. Median concentrations for different size distribution modes were...

line 30: also organics are important, not only sulfuric acid.

page 3, line 64-66: There was considerable effort in ACE-ASIA to look into continental outflow. Please refer also to that work.

page 4, line 94: See above for Chen et al. (2013) and other works.

line 114: m a.g.l not defined.

line 146: EC and OC not defined.
line 160: UVB not defined
line 163: ... trace gas measurements ...
line 167-168. Can you really differentiate with such a precision (49.6 nm)?
line 185. … disappear into the atmosphere? The nanoparticles are lost by coagulation to the pre-existing aerosol population and/or other surfaces.
line 189: Kulmala et al. (2012) Nature protocols –article gives a good overview of the methodlogy.
Kulmala, M., Petäjä, T., Nieminen, T., Sipilä, M., Manninen, H.E., Lehtipalo, K., Dal Maso, M., Aalto, P.P., Junninen, H., Paasonen, P., Riipinen, I., Lehtinen, K.E.J., Laaksonen, A. and Kerminen, V.-M. (2012) Measurement of the nucleation of atmospheric aerosol particles, Nature Protocols 7, 1651-1667.
line 191: The formation rate…
line 194: … some fraction of …
line 226 onwards: For median concentrations standard deviation does not a properly represent variability. Please show e.g. quartile ranges.
line 226 onwards and Figure 2: How are the average calculated? Do you fit each single size distribution and compline the median GMD, GSD and N for each mode? Or do you average the distributions and then do fitting? It would be good make a table showing each season and each mode parameters.
line 254: Any references to other works about seasonal variability of the PSD?
line 362: do you see two nucleation bursts or just two occasions, when nucleation mode particles are observed, either from secondary or primary sources?
line 385: compare observed GR to typical values around the globe (Kulmala et al. 2004).
line 435: You state that local vehicular emissions dominate the concentrations. Earlier you underlined the importance of secondary processes.
line 443: … a moderate correlation …
line 485: Banashape is not suitable for scientific literature. Please reformulate.
line 505: Significantly higher? Maybe for the Aitken mode, how about the other modes?
line 554: References to compare with other studies.

Table 1. Show quartile ranges.
Table 2. Show average J and GR + standard deviation.
Table 3. Show variability

Figure 2: Y-labels are too close to each other. Move values describing the fit results (GMD, GSD, N) to a separate table.
Figure 7: Scale to sulfuric acid mixing ratio.

Figure 10: also show the fitted parameters in a table (maybe together with the seasonal parameters).

Dear Authors,

thanks for the good responses.

In Table 1, please reformulate the table width to accommodate the last number 6 from the subscript in last two columns.

In Table 3, please consider reducing the number of significant figures for CS and wind speed.

yours,
-tuukka