The authors have address all the scientific comments by the two reviewers in sufficient detail. There are, however, a few technical issues that need to be taken care of before this paper can be accepted for publication.

Rather than using bold text to emphasize sub-heading, I would recommend using sub-section titles in section 3.3: 3.3.1 The South-Asian air mass, 3.3.2 The Bay of Bengal air mass, etc.

The many places in the text, where commas could/should be added to make the text more readable: … measurements, which was a limitation.. (p 5, l 25); … Arabian Sea, as concluded…(p 8, l 2); …2006), the emission fluxes… (p 8, l 7); …branches, indicating… (p 9, l 7); …only, as NOx… (p 9, l 22); …ions, such … , indicating… (p 10, l 25); … Pakistan, leading… (p 12, l 2); …China, with a mean… (p 14; l 17); …air masses, as detailed… (p 15, l 2); …polluted sites, namely Beijing and Kampur, are … (p 16, l 8); …for Delhi, exceeding the…Standards, can be… (p 19, l 20).

The year of publication should be in parenthesis when written as part of the text. As an example (page 4, line 6): …found in Gani et al. (2018) and Bhandari et al. (2019). The same mistake is in several places of the text.

The use of tense needs to be improved throughout the paper.
First, a past tense would fit better in the following places: …were carried out (p 3, l 15); Data were analyzed… (page 3, l 19); …assumed (p 5, l 24); …were chosen… (p 6, l 3); …was assumed (p 7, l 1); …was slightly (p 7, l 23); … HCL was… (p 9, l 15); …was not available (p 9, l 23); …were (p 12, lines 1 and 9); …exhibited…(p 12, l 26); … were relative low (or were very low) (p 13, l 18); …was more (p 13, l 27), etc.
Second, a present tense would fit better in the following places: …is given in Table 1 (p 7, l 17); …are given (p 8, l 26); …indicate (p9, l 14); …are detailed.. (p 9, l 28); …are shown (p 16, lines 25 and 30)

The are a few problematic sentences that need to rewritten to make text better understandable: lines 20-25 on page 4; lines 18-20 on page 9; lines 20-23 on page 11 (what is meant by from 10-16? during 10-16 or what?) lines 10-12 on page 14 (for this sentence, I would suggest something like …was approximately the same for all the air masses (….), and in line with the global average value of…); lines 3-5 on page 15; lines 17-19 on page 15. Please reformulate these sentences.

Section 1 reads better if a new paragraph were started from line 14, p 3 (In the work, for …).

I find the last paragraph in section 3.5 a bit odd. What do authors authors really mean by physical and chemical properties here. Particle size and number concentration clearly belong to former, and particle chemical composition belongs to latter, but how about particle hygroscopicity, or its ability to act as CCN? Would it simply be easier to state that aerosol physical and chemical (and optical) properties, and their time evolution, are tightly linked with each other.

The re-revised paper can be accepted for publication in ACP in its present form.

editor