Dear Dr. Verma et al.,

There are still a few remaining issues, as detailed below. Please further address, clarify and revise.

Although claimed "This is done", it seems that

(1) no additional quantitative results/information have been provided in the abstracted - related to reviewers' comment "In the Abstract more quantitative information should be included".

(2) the conclusion has not been shortened or revised to be more concise, but rather lengthened - related to reviewers' comment "The conclusion section should be short and crispy for better readability".

Best regards,
Editor.

Dear Dr. Ghosh et al.,
One remaining technical yet important issue is regarding running WRF-Chem with 0.1*0.1 degreeresolution. I double checked and found that indeed it is an option for WRF and as explained in your last response, WPS is converting the projection to km for each grid cell. But I am wondering how this dx and dy matrices are passed into the Chem module (e.g., the emission matrix is km-based, and the matrices of dx and dy are needed there)? Could you please point out the coding in the chem module that makes such simulation compatible? As there seems to be quite few studies have performed degree-based simulation with WRF-Chem, at least I haven't found any after spending some effort searching the literature, it would be very important if this issue can be clarified. Also it would be very helpful if the authors could provide some references to previous studies which also made such configurations in WRF-Chem simulations.
Best,