Dear Authors,

I am pleased to inform you that the evaluation of the reviewers was positive and your paper may be published in ACP subject to technical corrections that are reported below.
So, I would ask you to prepare a final version of your manuscript including all the proposed corrections.

Kind regards,

Federico Fierli

Rev. 1

Regarding SP2 calibrations, the authors have said in responses to reviewers
AC: “…The instrument provides acumulation model refractory BC mass mixing ratio with a total relative uncertainty of 30% (Laborde et al., 2012, Schwarz et al., 2013). The recent paper by Schwarz et al. (2017) details how the instrument had been calibrated and how the measurements had been corrected for the ACCESS campaign.”
Please insert the sentence referencing Schwarz et al. (2017) into Sect 2.1 of the main manuscript, possibly just before “The instrument has been calibrated using the…”


P7L5 Instead of “It helps to determine the appropriate injection layer and distribute the fire emissions vertically” the text from the author’s comments is much more informative:
“Appropriate fire properties are obtained from a synergy between remote sensing observations, land use and carbon fuel datasets to determine in which columns the fires are located and the plume rise is simulated explicitly (Grell et al., 2011).”


Regarding the differences between your method and Matsui et al., you have explained it very well in the comments- please add these sentences (or similar) to the manuscript in Sect 5.3.3, instead of just the responses to reviewers:
“If a plume emitted from a specific source diverges before reaching the receptor area, the transport efficiency calculated by Matsui’s method will decrease. In our modelling study, the transport efficiencies are only influenced by precipitation and therefore higher. They illustrate the role of deposition during transport rather than the contribution of the transport itself.”


Figures 8&13, the magenta circles are a welcome addition but they are quite difficult to see. I wonder if you could try a different colour, or maybe put a try an outline to make them more clear.

Rev. 2

General comments:
The manuscript is much improved over the previous version. I now recommend the
paper for publication in ACP and suggest only minor changes before publication.
Minor comments:
P1L13, "very small (< 30%)", remove "very".
P1L13-14, "precipitation amounts were larger (5-10 mm)" --> the accumulated
precipitation amounts were larger (5-10 mm).
P25L20-23, I think that the spatial distributions of dry deposition of BC (Figure 12a) are
co-located with the divergence regions of the horizontal BC flux in the PBL (Figure 7c),
which may be correspond to the BC emission regions, not the upward BC flux regions
and the divergence regions of the horizontal BC flux in the FT. Please check the
relationship.
P27L7-8, "TEBC(z)", it is defined by 3D (x, y, z) and the authors need not to write a
function of altitude z.
P28L12 and P29L5, "deposition process". It is better to replace this by "removal". In
general, deposition of aerosols indicates that the aerosols are removed from the
atmosphere to the surface.