This paper documents the PM2.5 changes as a result of COVID-19 in China. Following my previous comments the authors have made many useful revisions and the paper is much improved. I recommend it be accepted subject to the following mainly minor comments being addressed. Overall I think my revisions are minor, but they are important:

1. Figure S1 is very helpful and should be added to the main text. With reference to Figure S1a, the authors should comment on the substantial underestimate of the PM2.5 in northern China (not just in Beijing) and in the westernmost parts of your figure at 35N, and calculate a normalized mean bias from their figure and add it to the text with a comparison to the number obtained by Dang and Liao (2019). They should also discuss Figure S1b in detail in the text, rather than mentioning it in passing. It shows that on average the 2010 emissions substantially overestimate PM2.5 everywhere and the 1985 emissions still overestimate PM2.5, especially in the south, but agree better with the measurements. This is a good justification for using the 1985 inventory, which the authors should explain at line 119, and then add a substantial new paragraph to the text detailing their evaluation.
2. Rephrase first sentence: “blew China” is not conventional English. “swept through China” would be OK. In general the quality of the written English could still be improved significantly in several other places not mentioned below, I recommend the authors seek advice from colleagues if at all possible, or assistance from the copy-editors.
3. Line 50-52 are you referring to the same rebound. Rephrase to avoid repetition.
4. Line 92 which aerosol microphysics is used here?
5. Line 103 please be quantitative, add the magnitude of the biases to the text.
6. Line 203 and 206 need to explain how the significance testing was carried out.
7. Line 262 “break-off transportation” needs rephrasing.
8. Line 296 “approximation was lack of considering”-> “approximation did not consider”
9. The word ‘conjecture’ is inappropriate, I would comment that the technique introduces uncertainty.
10. Figure 1b caption: specify time period for ratios