Dear authors,
thank you very much for carefully consider the referee's comments in preparing and submitting a revised manuscript. I took me some days to carefully read through the revised manuscript. I think there is just some need for technical corrections and re-phrasing in particular concerning the new text additions. Some suggestions are included below. Please re-visit the manuscript for respective technical corrections and re-phrasing before uploading the final Version of the manuscript.
Kind regards,
Ottmar Möhler
Editor

Specific comments:
Abstract line 11: Do you mean „fine particle size distribution“? Please be more specific here and throughout the manuscript, e.g. also in line 14 of the abstract
Abstract lines 12 and 14: Space between numbers and units (same edits are also needed for other newly added text), use proper font, and specify what you mean with „peak value“ (is it the mode diameter?).
Page 2, lines 13-15: Do you mean „Recently, Kok et al. (2017) noted that the global dust cooling effect is likely to be smaller if the coarse mode of dust particles is better represented in climate models.“?
Page 6 lines 3-5: Please re-phrase.
Table 2: I think the referee #2 also asked for the „temporal resolution of the property“. Would it at all be possible to add this information to the table?
Figure 2: This is just an optical detail, but I recommend to process the fotos in a way that the tower is strictly vertically oriented.
Figure 3: Please use a somewhat larger font for the legend text in the figure (and a smaller for the text „a) Algeria“ and „b) Mauritania)“
Page 16, lines 1,2: Please re-phrase the sentence „This is in agreement that Algeria is more centered in the Saharan desert, closer to the major sources of dust and therefore with higher fraction of fresh dust.“
Page 16, lines 5/6: I think it is very easy to compare size distributions. I guess what you mean here, and what also better reflects the referee’s comment, is that the size distributions do „not well compare“ for some reasons, or „cannot directly be compared“ …
Page 25, lines 11-13: Suggestion for re-phrasing this sentence: „The ratio of some key chemical components, such as Ca/Al and (Ca+Mg)/Al, was found to be larger for the Mauritania site than for the Algeria site. This is in agreement with previous studies that have linked the composition of dusts with the location of their source areas.
But it is still not clear here what is „in agreement“ here. Did the previous study allocate dust for same sources and/or did they find same chemical component ratios?