Li et al. constructed an emission inventory for condensable particulate matter for China and evaluated its impact on the simulation of organic aerosol and PM2.5. The study provides useful information on how CPM emissions (which are conventionally not measured in emission studies) affect ambient concentrations. However, I find the paper difficult to follow mainly because the method descriptions are not well organized. For example, the authors did not explicitly state their operational definitions for OA, POA, SOA, FPM, CPM, OMlsi, OM(C*<100), SVOC, and their relationships, which cause confusion. For example, I am confused about whether CPM emissions are accounted for as only primary emissions or also as secondary emissions in the emission inventory? And whether this inventory assumes that all CPM are organic? Whether E_OA include E_OMlsi (Eq.1-3) or do they represent non-overlapping components? Clearly describing what the authors actually did and meant would definitely help assess the scientific value of this study. 

Minor comments

Line 76 ambiguous meaning of "negative impact". Change to "negative radiative forcing".

Line 98: unclear what is "inapplicability of parameter localizations". Do you mean there is a lack of local emission factors?

Line 109: "totally" -> "completely"

Line 134: the ambiguous expression "more than 50% of organic composition were measured in CPM". Please rephrase.

Line 148: "largely" -> "greatly" or "substantially"

Table S3 should list the measurement methods that these studies used.

Line 172 & Line 188-193: Please explain what is the difference between OA(CPM) and OM_lsi(CPM). Do you consider OA(CPM)-OM_lsi(CPM) as POA(CPM)? 

Line 196: what is the relative importance of stationary combustion vs. vehicles?

Line 216-217 & 270-273: what are the bases of these scaling factors? I thought you already derived emissions based on Eq.1-3. Why do you need to scale with respect to POA emissions?

Line 318-319: C*<=100 or C*<=10? Also state the unit of C*.

Line 322: The OA emissions reported here are for what geographical region?

Section 3.2. These evaluations are not relevant and are just distractive. I'd suggest removing the section or putting it in the supplementary material.

Line 369-372. Use "episode" instead of "process".

Section 3.3. How do the observations distinguish POA and SOA? Their operational definition should be introduced, as sometimes it is not so straightforward to compare to simulations.

Line 461-462: Why do you think it is more likely due to meteorological factors, rather than that your emissions are still underestimated and that there are still missing SOA pathways?

Figure 1. Explain in the caption what the color shading represents

Organic aerosol, especially secondary organic aerosol (SOA), is a major component of the overall aerosol loading in various environments around the globe and significantly influences the air quality and climate. However, there is a significant gap between observed and modeled SOA. One possible reason is the incomplete information on emissions and properties of SOA precursors. This work modified the aerosol emission inventory by including condensable particulate matter (CPM) and tested this inventory by simulating some observations in Beijing and Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. The manuscript is overall well-written and fits the scope well of ACP. However, I have a few comments to be addressed before this manuscript can be published.

1. Estimations of CPM emissions (Line 160 – 198): It is reasonable to assume that CPM contains many condensable substances, such as nitric acid, ammonia, S/IVOCs, and the gas-particle partitioning of which is regulated by temperature. Therefore, have many of the CPM components already been considered in the gas emissions inventory? This may lead to repeated consideration of many compounds and further overvaluing of emission intensity; please clarify how organic (gas + particle) emissions were considered in this study?
2. The model configuration (Line 200 – 246): The emitted CPM can be further oxidized in the atmosphere to produce SOA. How does the model consider this process? It seems there is no component information of the CPM. Therefore, it is not clear to me how CPM performs atmospheric chemical reactions.
3. Line 241: Please provide the reasons for setting the emissions to be reduced by 30%.
4. Table 4: This study can be seen as an improvement to the emission inventory, but it seems that the model simulates SOA better than POA. Please clarify this.
5. Line 338-339: how to make the estimation of uncertainties?
6. Line 82: the reference here should be Huang et al., 2014.
7. The distinction between SOA and POA based on OC/EC measurements is debatable. I recommended using some AMS data, published a lot during the last decades in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, to validate.