Dear Dr. Li,

After reading your response to the reviewers, I am not satisfied with your answers. It is either not adequately answered, or not clear written. Please revise your response throughout with "point-by-point" answers to each of reviewer's comments/questions, and clearly state where and how you revised your manuscript either "copy-paste" in your response letter or tracking change in your revised manuscript.

Just for example, regarding to reviewer #2's question about figure 2 (seasonality), you did provide a new plot, but not explain why the new plot is better than the old one and why it is more clear and how it helps to explain the seasonality. And latter in Reviewer #3's question about "The seasonality reported in Figure 2 appears finally to be quite weak and made on 'standard' seasons, but is this in agreement with the local weather (e.g., dry versus wet seasons, and so on)? Also why plotting total PAHs for highlighting the seasonality as the later might be more pronounced for given molecules? Also I did found that the discussion about the seasonality can be revised to clarify and strengthen the message the authors want to convey." Your answer is simply "Reviewer #2 has a same comment and we have changed Fig.2". How the change of figure 2 can answer all above questions raised by the Reviewer #3 here?

I am looking forward to your revised response letter and tracking change manuscript.
With our best regards,
Yafang Cheng