The effort of modeling interactive agricultural emissions of NH3 by the FANv2 process model in the CAM-Chem model is of great interest for climate modeling due to the response of these emissions to climatic parameters. Its evaluation by comparison to prescribed emission inventories and to atmospheric observations of gaseous NH3 and aerosol NH4+ as well as NH4+ wet deposition fluxes and satellite NH3 total column observations is extremely useful in this respect and points to a number of improvements to be done in the model to better represent observations. The paper is overall well written and within the scope of the journal and deserves publication in ACP after a few minor improvements listed below:

Page 19, line 10-15: the impact of crustal material on the partitioning of NH3 to the aerosol phase and subsequently on dry deposition flux is expected to also affect NH3 levels over Africa and lead there to a higher underestimate. This has to be somehow discussed.

Page 21, lines 12-13: (despite) Here, it could be mentioned again the involvement of sulfate aerosol that is overestimated (more ammonium sulfate formed in the model) as stated earlier by the authors, so it seems that modelled aerosol is more acidic than observed and it make sense to have less nitrate partitioning in the aerosol phase (see for instance Nenes et al., Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6023–6033, 2021). I would expect that the result will be different when the model will account for crustal and sea salt nonvolatile cations, bringing nitrate simulations closer to observations?  Changing temporal resolution of NH3 emissions is also affecting the acidity of the aerosol and thus the partitioning of nitrate to it.

Page 17, line 21: do you have an explanation why NH3 concentrations behave differently at the Agourou site than the other sites?

Page 20, line 8: I propose changing title to ‘nitrate aerosol’ since measurements do not necessarily concern NH4NO3 as also stated by the authors at the bottom of this page.

Page 5, line 13: please specify if it is nitrate observations in bulk aerosol, PM10 or PM2.5

Page 7, line 21: ‘of by’ I would keep ‘of’

Page 10, lines 28-29: here you could clarify that wet deposition flux of NH3 and NH4+ are measured together as NH4+

Page 17, line 8: specify north of the equator

Page 17, line 9: Central and West Africa

Page 20, line 6: I would remove ‘regarding’  

Page 25, line 1: ‘to to’ remove one

Page 25, line 3: ‘ the the’ remove one

The manuscript presents an evaluation of the agriculture NH₃ emissions process model (FANv2) embedded within the land model CLM, and coupled to the atmospheric chemical transport model CAM-chem. The evaluation focuses mainly on atmospheric species (atmospheric NH₃ and NH⁺⁴ , and wet NH⁺⁴ ), and uses a massive compilation of in-situ observations from regional networks, literature and satellite data from IASI. The manuscript also evaluates the use of alternative global emission inventories (HTAP, CEDS, EDGAR).

Modelling interactive agriculture NH₃ emissions (both from synthetic fertilizer and manure) is of a great interest to the earth system modelling community as these agriculture emissions are very sensitive to climate.  I really enjoyed reviewing the manuscript. It is well written, organized and the figures and tables are clear.  The paper presents results that are of interest to the ACP readers and is adequate for publication, with a few minor changes:

• Page 10 Line 2. Referring to Figures S9-12 here is a bit confusing as these belong to section 3.1 below. I recomend refering those figures within section 3.1.
• Page 18. Figure 10. Monthly precipitation from observations is compared to FAN or HTAP?
• Page 20 Line 14. FigS4 should be FigS17?
• Page 25 Line 1 “to to”
• Page 24 Line 3 “the the”