This study concerns on the solvent use emissions that has been one of the most popular topics in the VOCs emission research. In particular, the volatile chemical products (VCPs) are considered as the emerging source of urban NMVOCs. However, understanding of NMVOCs emissions from VCPs are still lacking in China.  This work addressed this important problem by establishing a detailed emission NMVOCs inventory of solvent use (including six VCPs, i.e., coatings, adhesives, inks, pesticides, cleaners and personal care products) for China based on the mass balance technique. The authors found that NMVOC emissions from solvent use increased rapidly from 2000 to 2014 but leveled off thereafter due to control measures implemented on the solvent-related factories in China. Personal care products become an increasing important source NMVOCs. Speciated emissions, OFP and SOAP as well as the comparisons with previous studies are also analyzed in detail. Overall, this manuscript is well presented and within the scope of ACP. The methods are solid, and the results are informative. It can be accepted for publication after the following comments are addressed.

1. Line 122-123: Why the authors considered the six types of organic solvent products. Are there any other products that could be the sources of NMVOCs?
2. Line 139: In equation (1), emissions of S/IVOC are calculated. Are the NMVOCs included S/IVOCs in this study? Please clarify across the entire manuscript.
3. Line 146-147: Why only the control of NMVOCs emissions from industrial solvent use are considered? Are there any other control measures implemented for the residential sectors in China?
4. Line 367-368: “Ink emissions were much higher in MEIC, while similar results were found for Sun EI and this study (Figure 7b).” What are the reasons for these differences?
5. Line 409-412: “Coatings contribute...solvent-based coatings are dominant ...the wide use of water-based solvent…” The solvent-based coatings and water-based adhesives/inks are large. What are their fractions, respectively? Please clarify here.
6. Some other minor comments:

Line 372-374: This sentence is too long.

Line 397:  The wording “increase less” is confusing.

Figure 4: The size or positions of the left and right panels can be modified.

Line 355: “The reasons for …. activity data.” This sentence is not completed.

Line 357: between-> from.

Line 394-396: “Compared with 2000…industrial process in MEIC in 2017.” This sentence is not completed.

This manuscript presents a long-term NMVOCs emission inventory of solvent use during 2000-2017 in China. Based on a mass (material) balance method, NMVOCs emissions were estimated for six categories, including coatings, adhesives, inks, pesticides, 35 cleaners and personal care products. This paper deal with an important issue of NMVOCs emissions from solvent use, which is a major precursor of ozone and fine particle pollution. Strength of this work is to use of direct activities of VOC-containing product consumption statistics for mass balance-based estimation methodology(eq. 1). Several weaknesses, however, are also found in this paper such as, use of national level statistics, lack of I/S VOC result, non-sector specific control application, and weak discussion in general.

I, therefore, think this manuscript need to be improved further to be considered for publication. Followings are my review points and suggestions.

[Major Comments]

1. Page 5, 12, 13 : Estimation of VOCs emissions using production-consumption data (i.e. mass balance-based estimation) should be more accurate way of estimating VOC emissions, compares to EF-based estimation. The inter-comparison to the various EF-based results (e.g. MEIC, Sun et al., etc.) show higher or lower level of agreement depend on the sectors. I strongly recommend authors to discuss deeper for reason of different agreement levels by sector. If possible, subsector level discussion using Table S13 would help understanding differences among EF-based vs. MB-based approach. I think it would be one of the most important knowledge that this work can contribute.
2. Page 6 and 10 : Province level emissions would better be presented as a map with provincial VOCs composition graphs on it, in addition to Figure 3. Considering VOCs’ atmospheric lifetime, the level of spatial detail(i.e. national level) in emission estimation is limited. Since the top-down allocation(from national to provincial) using the proxy data(Table S7) is not quite accurate methodology, authors need to discuss more on limitations introduced by national level estimation then downscaling, not directly estimated using local(provincial) statistics as in some EF-based estimation.
3. Page 7, 10, 11, Text S1 : Chemical speciation should be a very important part of the VOCs estimation. The way they were estimated, however, are not clearly presented and discussed in this manuscript. Authors are required to expand Text S1 and Figure S3-S12 to state more detail data and procedure for the chemical speciation, which can support species-based results in the page 11.
4. Page 5, 6: Estimation of S/IVOCs are presented in the Eq 1. and 2., but not stated further in the manuscript. Since the importance of I/SVOCs emissions are growing, I recommend adding contents and discussions for them.  
5. Page 8, 9, 13, Figure 2, 9 : VOC emission control stated only for industrial production (i.e. industrial process) in “3.1 Control of NMVOCs emissions” section which is limited. Analysis of emissions control in manufacturing industry would better be sorted by not only control technology (Table S8) but type of industry (i.e sub-sectors). Since much of emissions coming from the consumption process, authors need to add contents and discussion on this process. For example, application of water-based vs. solvent-based paint with respect to national/regional control polices. I suggest to merge control-related contents in the section 4.3 (also, in Figure 9), need to be merged in the section “3.1 Control of NMVOCs emissions.”  
6. Page 13: Contents in the “4.2. Comparison with other source” mostly discuss about the cross-sectoral importance changes using other references. I would suggest to shrink and move to introduction and/or conclusion chapters.

[Minor Comments]

Page 6 : Authors state that “Uncertainty is set to be ±30% if data are directly from official statistics; uncertainty is assumed to be ± 80% if activity data is estimated from other statistical information or reports.” How could authors set these values? Form Wei et al, 2011a? Please elaborate more.

Page 26: Description for (a) and (b) need to be switched.

This study is very interesting because it uses a unique approach to estimate NMVOC emissions in China. In particular, the approach of estimating VOC emissions from adhesives is excellent in terms of the points of view.

It would be good to work on deriving the VOC composition from the literature values, as shown carefully in Figures S3 -12.

It is still necessary to examine the details in order to use these results as input data for an atmospheric model, like CMAQ, but I think it will be useful enough for discussions on understanding the NMVOC emissions of solvents from China.

However, with regard to IVOC, it is a pity that only parameters related to IVOC are listed in Table S6.

In addition, authors mentioned VOC source categories that are not included in this study (L359-360). Do the authors not include them in the total amount as reference or reference data? I think that is one of the reasons of the differences between the VOC emissions from the solvent of REAS v3.1 and this study.

There are some other things that I noticed:

“3.1 Control of NMVOCs emissions” :

Please indicate which of the six categories you are considering applying industrial solvent emission control to. Also, please indicate whether the values are uniform or individually set for all applied categories. For coating, what do the authors think of architectural coating for emission control?

L53: Please write the full terms of OFP and SOAP in the abstract.

L122-125: I think it is better to write somewhere that “Level 1” refers to the six categories (coatings, inks, adhesives, pesticides, cleaners and personal care).

L125-128: I think it is better to explain the subcategories in the order they appear in L122-123.

L161-164: I think the Wvoc listed in Table S6 was calculated by the authors based on Table S1-S5, but they need to mention that clearly.

Only insecticide is shown for pesticides in Table S4. Table S6 lists Insecticide, Herbicide, Bactericide and Other. How did the authors set the VOC ratio for pesticide components other than insecticide?

L163: It would be nice to note that GB18582-2008 and GB24408-2009 are the national standards (GB) for volatile organic compound (VOC) emission restrictions in China.

L170: Eqation => Equation

L193-194: The authors applied foreign profiles to the products lacking domestic source profiles, but are the source of the foreign profiles “Li et al., 2014”.? Do the authors see “Lie et al., 2014” as a methodology reference? Please write the reference of the foreign profiles.

L305: Please write the full terms of OVOC.

L323: SOA => SOAP

L340: The reference for REAS v3.1 is incorrect. This reference is REASv2.

Figure 6: This REAS v3.1 NMVOC is the sum of PAINT and SLV, but the decrease from 2014 to 2015 does not seem to be so large. Since the numerical value of REAS v3.2 has been released, I think it is good to replace it.    URL: https://www.nies.go.jp/REAS/

Figure 5: How did the authors decide on the SOAP for unspecified VOCs?