Dear authors, co-authors, I finally found last week the time required to carefully check your revised ms and reponse to the comments by the two reviewers of your paper on aerosol-chemistry-radiation-BL feedbacks during haze events over Beijing submitted for publication in ACP. I actually thought I had already submitted my decision on 11/1 but apparently something went wrong and now resubmit this decision. The point is that going through your revision and the response, the more I read I got the impression that you have not submitted the properly finished documents. For that reason I give you opportunity to still do so also because I intend to invite one of the reviewers to re-review your revision. But in doing so, I want to be sure that you provide a revision and response file that is of sufficient quality. But so please carefully check my editors comment since this makes more clear what, according to me, are the main issue(s) with the revision and response,

Laurens Ganzeveld

Dear author, co-authors,

Having received a review of your revised version of your paper ACP-2020-233 it has become further clear that, in submitting your revision as well as your response to previous comments on the paper but also additional files such as the supplement, that you have not properly handled the shared feedback. Besides these observations also being explicitly mentioned in this new review, I also noticed that in your latest reply you didn't address my editors comments on a potential mix up of document versions. I have actually considered also for this reasons to reject the paper but having received now again this (constructive) review I give you once more again the opportunity to properly handle all those comments and then resubmit in due time a consistent selection of files including your replies (including an explanation what has been going wrong), a revision as well as a supplement that contain the changes as being addressed in your response letter. Hope that this then really allows to focus on the content features of your ms submitted for publication in ACP.

Laurens Ganzeveld

Dear author, co-authors, after a review process that has taken a long time, I can finally accept your manuscript on chemistry-aerosol-BL dynamics interactions submitted for publication in ACP. I received a final review and have pasted here the last shared comments that I still want you to handle in providing the final version of the ms for publication in ACP:

"Thank you also for including the information on the CO2+/NO3 artefact. The authors cited in the response to the reviewer that details are provided in the publication Cai et al 2020, can this reference be included in your manuscript and specifically state that the information is detailed in the supplementary material. I have no further comments on this manuscript and I recommend it for publication."

Regards, Laurens Ganzeveld

Dear authors, co-authors, now having received and checked this last minor, I accept your paper for publication in ACP,

Regards, Laurens Ganzeveld