Please see attached PDF for full review.

The article has estimated ammonia emission potentials from agricultural land using satellite remote sensing data and a chemical transport model. The analysis was done across the European continent. Future implications of climate change on emission potentials are also analysed. I am not expressing my opinion about the article acceptance at this stage. The other reviewers might have an opinion in this regard. However, after reading the article, I have following major concerns.

1. The study period seems to be only the month of March 2011 which marks the starts of growing season (Line 26-27). Since the equation (2-1) points a direct relationship between the ammonia emission potential (𝛤_{𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙}) and the soil temperature. How much monthly skin temperature variations are there across the Europe? What are the fertilization practices in the region? What type of fertilizers are used in the region? How much NH₃ content each fertilizer has? Are there any seasonal variations of fertilizer application rates? These aspects are missing in the article. If you consider all these aspects to its minimum, the logic behind one month simulation and drawing future changes (%) in 𝛤_{𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙} is not justified.
2. Why did authors choose to assigned mass transfer coefficient (k) values to non-fertilized forests, shrublands and grasslands that ultimately resulted in 𝛤𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 ranges of 10 – 10² in a non-fertilized soil. The justification given between lines (337-343) require some literature-based support to establish the linkage between SO₂ and NH₃k values over non- fertilized land-use.
3. Any bias correction of SSP scenarios was done before analysing future climate change implications on 𝛤𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙_.?. If so, kindly mention it in the article.
4. The study is based on number of assumptions e.g., assuming [𝑁𝐻₃]_𝑎𝑡𝑚 equals to [𝑁𝐻₃]_𝑐𝑜𝑙 (line 597). The questions raised above are also based on assumptions. So, it would be better to discuss the limitations of this analysis thoroughly in a separate sub-section.

Minor concerns

1. Paragraph two (lines 52-56) is too short either expand it or merge it with adjacent paragraphs.
2. There is no Result section it would be better to term section 3 as Results rather than “GEOS-Chem model simulation: validation and analysis”.
3. Discussion and conclusion should be separate.
4. The sentence structure and grammatical errors can be rectified by employing some professional services. I would highly recommend that.