In the study concentration levels of PAHs, sugars and OPAHs in PM10 were studied at one urban background and three residential areas in Sweden and results were compared to the modelling results. Population exposure was also estimated, which was interesting and showed the impact of the study more clearly. Sampling and analytical methods were well-described and manuscript is well-written. There have been some earlier publications on PAHs and wood combustion from Nordic countries, but there is very little knowledge on the OPAHs. Therefore results on OPAHs could be discussed more. In addition to this, I had only minor comments:

Page 2, line 30: Lifetime of levoglucosan has been estimated to be 1.8 days on average. So it is not that long living (Li, Y., Fu, T-M., Yu, J.Z., Feng, X., Zhang, L., Chen, J., Suresh Kumar Reddy, B., Kawamura, K., Fu, P., Yang, X., Zhu, L., and Zeng, Z.: Impacts of Chemical Degradation on the Global Budget of Atmospheric Levoglucosan and Its Use As a Biomass Burning Tracer, Environmental Science & Technology, 55, 5525-5536, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c07313, 2021).

Page 3, lines 1-3: Where? In this study or earlier studies?

Maybe you could mention somewhere that some of the PAHs you studied are semivolatile and significant fraction of them may be found in gas phase.

Could you also comment somewhere how close to the EU annual limit values/thresholds you were?

Page 8, lines 22-24: Could it also be that during summer time more of these 3 and 4 ring PAHs partition to the gas phase?

Figure 4: Which are the locations if fig a)-c)?

Figure 8: For EN and YJ local wood and traffic has same pattern in the figure.

The manuscript is well written and exposes results from the air monitoring campaign. In my opinion, the manuscript must be focused on that line of research and could be considered after major revisions. 

Major comments:

The aim of the study is related to showing the results of the air monitoring campaign meanwhile the authors tried to include numerical simulation in their discussion-analysis with a small contribution to the analysis of the measurements during the campaign. The authors used a Gaussian Model without considering the photochemical reactions of PAHs in the air, even when they mentioned the formation of the OPAHS from the photochemical degradation of PAHs (Line26 p2). In my opinion,  the authors must consider a more confident model (like Eulerians) to replicate the observations.

P7 L15 Could be more detailed about how the climatology data was used and applied in the study (ie: the data was averaged? are measured data in specific places? how many places?) How the historical data could fit the simulation in the period of analysis? The authors must justify this method to reduce the uncertainties about meteorological conditions for the PM dispersion.

P13 L15 The authors showed the causes for the poor correlation between modeled and observed values of PAHs. This result does not contribute to the analysis. The numerical simulation could probably be erased from the manuscript due to the several causes mentioned by the authors and the limitation of the model used.

Minor comments:

p4 subsection 2.2 Why only used the PM10 filter and not PM2.5? The PM2.5 sampling filter could indicate more confidence in the long-range transportation and source contribution of the PAHs and OPAHs.

p5 Title subsection 2.3.3 Change Levoglucosna by Levoglucosan