You have not adequately addressed the comments made by the reviewers.
To be able to have this manuscript published I would like you to take into consideration the following remarks:

In the Introduction, please make sure that you site all the relevant work that has been devoted to looking at trends of PM2.5 over Beijing. In addition, the last 3-4 sentences of the introduction should summarize the sections that you develop in the paper.

Remarks to be addressed concerning reviewer 1:

I propose that you include the following Table with the relevant explanations from your answers to comment 3 from Reviewer 1 in the manuscript:

The comparison of The local environmental statistical data used for this research and other official statistical data in 2017 (unit: 10k tons)
SO2 NOx CO VOC NH3 PM10 PM2.5 BC OC
Statistical data for this research 1.38 10.15 49.54 13.47 3.20 14.74 3.92 0.17 0.44
National Environmental Statistics Bulletin 1.38 12.16 52.03 24.24 3.26 14.68 3.91 0.22 0.41
“2+26” center for air pollution prevention and control 0.89 9.24 48.98 13.93 3.16 13.82 3.72 0.19 0.46


Where in the revised version do you indicate the following results that appears in your answer to Comment 4 of reviewer 1?

“This means the extracted seasonal component and short-term component made a significant contribution to seasonal and short-term variations of original PM2.5 concentrations in Beijing from 2013 to 2017, indicating a satisfactory KZ filtering result. »

You do not answer adequately the comment 5 of reviewer 1.
“Q5. Section 3.2.2. Model evaluation is the key point in this paper. If the model data is not consistent with observation, contribution of emission control is out of the question. It seems that lots of data are far from the observation especially during the heavy air pollution days. So it is better to convert Fig 2 to time series plots, which can tell us more detailed information about the model evaluation.”
Please draft an adequate answer and modify the manuscript accordingly.

In your revised manuscript 2 Tables are referenced as Table 3. You should have picked up this mistake.

In the new Figure 3 you have 6 plots of timeseries and 3 scatterplots. I want a descriptive Figure caption for ALL of them.
In the new Figure 4 you have 6 plots of timeseries and 2 plots with stacked lines. Please write a Figure caption for ALL of them.

How did you change the text to reflect Question 7 of reviewer 1:
“L339. How did you get the conclusion “KZ filtering provides a more reliable method”? Just because the KZ filtering was station-based and WRF-CMAQ model was
a grid-based? The averaged relative contribution of meteorological variations to PM2.5 reduction using the WRF-CMAQ model was very similar to that using KZ filtering. Verification is very important » ?

How did you change the text to reflect the comment “Question 8” of Reviewer 1?
“L398-399. Supplement the correlation coefficient between wind speed and PM2.5. And how about the influence of the other meteorological parameters (such as T, RH, wind direction) on PM2.5? ».

Finally all your co-authors should read and approve of your answers. Is it the case?

Sincerely,

Yves Balkanski

The authors have now made the effort to account for the suggestions made by the reviewers. This paper can go into publication in ACP.

Sincerely,

Yves Balkanski