The authors need to further address the reviewer´s comments.

Reviewer 1
Point 4. Figure S2 does not indicate if the model is actually doing a good job; please be more specific and discuss the validation

Point 5 – This point has not been answered. Reviewer 2 has stressed this point

" However, my other concern, that how realistic is new emission inventory is, hasn’t been addressed. Why not include a comparison for ozone precursors in Figure S2 to address this? For almost any environment, if NOx emission is reduced by 60% or 89% in the model, simulated ozone levels will be for sure reduced dramatically. So, it is important to know if the new developed emission inventory/scenario can really reflect the real world. Again, this is fundamental to justify this study.”

Reviewer 2
Point 3. You have at least the ozone concentrations during GoAmazon? Please use them.
Point 4. The meteorological background needs more information. The reference to the Bolivian High is thrown in without further explanation; indeed, it is associated with low rainfall in the Amazon but is not the explanation, or the cause. Also, the reviewer asked for a description of eventual mesoscale systems acting in the region during the time period.