Dear authors,

The manuscript has been improved after revision following the reviewers comments. However, one reviewer has a comment to improve the grammar of the manuscript. see comment: "I suggest, however, that the authors carefully proof their paper for grammar, clarity, and flow before final publication. For example, in the revised draft the first sentences of paragraphs 4 and 5 of Summary and Conclusions seem to be redundant, with both referring to a large contribution from Asian anthropogenic sources in the form of chronic pollution on time scale of 1-2 months."

Based on my own reading, I would strongly suggest the authors to improve the clarity of sentences frequently appearing in the text. I pick up some, e.g.,
1. Page 1. Lines 20-21. what do you mean "the direct transport"?
2. Page 1. Line 30. "warms from global BC"?
3. Page 2. Lines 3 and 5. "climate effect". suggest to remove "climate".
4. Page 3. Line 11. "long-term average sources"?
5. Page 3. Line 24. "...are computationally limited in the spatial and temporal resolution of the source regions that can be considered"? this potion is difficult to understand.
6. Page 3. Line 28. "...over the spatial and temporal resolution of the model"?
7. Page 4. Lines 11-12. "source contributions to BC at the five sites to sources". It shall be "contributions to BC at the five sites from sources"
8. Page 13. Lines 4-5. "anthropogenic emissions of BC emitted"? shall be "anthropogenic BC emissions"
9. Page 16. Lines 17 and 18. what do you mean "far field source regions", and "near field emissions"?
10. Page 16. please cite the following paper which looks at the sensitivity of BC transport to Arctic to the horizontal resolution:
"Ma, P.-L., P. J. Rasch, J. D. Fast, R. C. Easter, W. I. Gustafson Jr., X. Liu, S. J. Ghan, and B. Singh (2014), Assessing the CAM5 physics suite in the WRF-Chem model: Implementation, resolution sensitivity, and a first evaluation for a regional case study, Geoscientific Model Development, 7, 755–778, doi:10.5194/gmd-7-755-2014."
11. Page 17. Line 11. "miss" -> "missed". what do you mean "WBF effects by the simply assumption"?
12. Page 17. Line 14. what do you mean "low Arctic" and "high Arctic"?
13. Page 17. Line 22. "emissions in the Pacific ocean"? is it sea salt?
14. Page 17. Line 24. "emissions at lower than higher latitudes." improve here.
15. Page 19. Line 1. "far field sources faraway than near field sources"? improve here.