The authors have done a good job responding to the referee’s comments. There remain a few points where some clarification or correction is needed.

In their response to Reviewer #1 concerning Section 2.2, the authors say “Cut the sample filter into thin strips”. It would be much better if they said “The filters were cut into thin strips”.

In their response to Reviewer #1 concerning Section 2.3, It is not clear what is meant by “qualified ions”

The response that explains the g-factor: Instead of “using EPR to detect the sample”, it would be more correct to say “using EPR to analyze the sample”. This phrase appears in several places, so should be corrected everywhere.

The response to the Reviewer’s question on L204-206, the authors have still not specified if the percentages were by mass.

The authors response L220-242. The phrase “the variation in the g-factor with concentration in different season is different.” Is a bit awkward, it would be better to simply say “the g-factor varied differently depending on season”

The response to Comment (7). What is “the catering process”?

Manuscript comments:
Line 24 , Instead of “other fuel combustions”, just say “other fuels”

Line 159. The phrase that was changed is better, but should be changed to the past tense. “A gradient-based multiplication algorithm was used to find a solution….. and then the first algorithm was used….. based on the least-squares effective-set algorithm.”