I have gone through the manuscript now. And I am quite happy with the revised version of the manuscript. The comments/suggestions given by the Reviewers' have been properly addressed/implemented in the manuscript. I, however, still have the concern about addressing the size distribution in the manuscript text.

I still have few concerns about giving the emphasis to the importance of the size distribution, which is not measured by the authors in the manuscript. Instead only PM 2.5 and PM10 have been sampled. For example in abstract authors have mentioned that they have assessed size by daily measurements. The last sentence of the abstract again mentions that study defines changes to the size distribution and concentration. It has been mentioned on numerous occasions.

Also revise the introduction: Authors are emphasizing the importance of measurements of size distribution, which they have not done.

Further, in my opinion the details of each type of bioaerosol for given season could be discussed rather than separating by bioaerosol type. For example Late summer: discuss the details of all bioaerosol type for this season and so on. However, this could be a personal choice and leave it to the Authors' to decide.

Please revise the manuscript thoroughly by clearly mentioning that it is fine and coarse mode measurements. Page 8 line 6; Page 8 line 33; page 9 line 4 and many more.

Dear Authors,

I am now happy to read the manuscript. Further, I am not really sure of the terminologies and definitions you have used about "fine particulate matter (PM2.5), coarse PM (PM10-2.5) and PM10 (as the combination of PM2.5 and PM10-2.5)". Either you try to provide the reference for this somewhere in the methodology section or please consider this making as PM2.5 (particulate matter <= 2.5 micro meter) and PM10 (particulate matter <= 20.0 micrometer) for simplicity.

Overall I am now satisfied with the manuscript and I congratulate all the authors of the manuscript.

With best wishes,

Sincerely,

Sachin