Dear authors,

thank you for your detailed responses to the reviewers' comments and revisions of the manuscript. I just have a few additional technical corrections:

P. 4 line 72 "and this may cause bias in the particle matrix" could you make a little clearer what you mean with "bias in the particle matrix". Do you mean matrix effects can bias relative intensities? Please specify.

P. 4 line 79 "Particles are with more secondary species with deeper processing."
. Consider changing to "Particles with higher amounts of secondary species have been processed more extensively" Also, does it matter what secondary species. I am not sure that more sulfate indicates more aging/processing.

P. 4 line 80 "However, these studies lack the use of this data to provide a view of the dynamic particulate processing." Please be more specific on "these studies" and "this data".

P. 4 line 82 "the process of single particles" Do you mean the "processing" if not I don't understand what "the process of single particles"p. means.

P. 26 line 381 "Also, the emission of OC_PG and ECOC_PG is popular in the region." Popular implies that people like doing this. I would suggest using "common" or "frequent" instead.

P. 29 line 435 "a low concentration area of SO2". I suggest rephrasing as "an area of low SO2 concentration ..."

P. 29 lines 445-446 "Conclusively, the particulate characterization in rural areas around Beijing is significantly influenced by residential coal burning." I would suggest using "composition" rather than "characterization". I think "characterization" is the act of analyzing it and I think you mean that it is the actual "composition" or something similar that is influenced.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Frank Keutsch

Dear authors,

thank you for your technical corrections.

Best Regards,

Frank Keutsch