|This manuscript aims to introduce an atmospheric measurement project named APHH-Beijing. The large-scale and multifacet nature of the project justifies an introdution article to offer an orientation to the forthcoming research papers, which are expected to be a fairly large number. The current article serves this purpose by summarizing the background and outlining the objectives and motivations of the project. The authors also responded well to the previous round of reviews and added more contextural information about earlier air pollution studies in Beijing. However, further improvements are necessary before this manuscript is suitable for publication. Serious efforts are deemed necessary to improve the writing quality, logical flow, and clarity. The current version contains many parts that are vague, hard to follow, and abundant of grammatical errors. The manuscript also sometimes reads like a compilation of texts from multiple authors without a streamlined integration. Several issues are pointed out below in this review but the list is far from complete. A careful proofreading and English editorial job would be necessary. The article is also on the long side with details that appear to be redundant and somewhat distracting. The scientific values and innovative aspects of the project should be emphasized more. |
Some detailed comments are given below. (Note that the quoted page and line numbers are all based on the change-tracked version of the manuscript)
Page 2-3, the revised abstract shows no improvement and remains ineffective. The revisions and rearrangement of the textst are sometimes confusing. For example, information on “the two campaigns” should be mentioned before the sentence on line 80. The added discussions on pollution concentrations do not fit well. The abstract should be rewrittend.
Line 125, it is strange to claim Mexico City as a developed megacity while Beijing a developing one.
Line 140 – 165, some details don’t seem necessary. Consider to shorten the texts and consolidate the points.
Line 150, remove “a” in front of “good air quality”
Line 165, “linked to”
Line 248 seems better be placed after 3.1 Research Themes.
Line 252, is AIRPOLL-Beijing part of APHH-Beijing? Multiple acroynmed studies, sucha as AIRPRO, AIRELESS, APIC-ESTEE, INHANCE, etc, are discussed, but their relationships to APHH are unclear. It could be helpful to add a paragraph earlier in the manuscript to introduce these studies and explain their relationships with APHH.
The sentence on line 255 is difficult to understand, what are “the overall aims”?
Line 301, remove “are” after “aims”
Line 319, add “were” in front of “collected”
Line 330, the meaning of “the IAP tower is critcal” is vague, in terms of what?
Line 350 – 380, this sentence is awkwad and grammatically incorrect.
Line 722, “Based on NAQPMS modeling”