The paper reports BC measurements in southern Sweden including source analyses and interpretations. In my opinion it suits well to the journal. This is the corrected version of the manuscript where the authors have replied to other reviewer’s comments. For me the replies look fine, I didn’t find much to correct any more. However, I did still find some things that I think should be corrected. They are in the detailed comments below.
Detailed comments and questions
L 83. “ An Aerosol Particle Mass Analyzer (APM) was at a later stage deployed ...” Show the deployment period also in Fig. 1, just like for all the other instruments.
L123. “Default corrections for filter scattering (Cref = 1.39) and loading effects were used (Weingartner et al., 2003).” The Weingartner et al. (2003) correction was developed for the older AE version, AE31. It is good for it. However, the AE33 calculates the loading corrections already during the measurements by using the dual-spot method and the loading correction function presented by Drinovec et al. So, how have you really used the Weingartner et al. correction? Correction on top of another correction? Or have you used the raw data and reprocessed that according to Weingartner et al.? If so, why, what is the justification? That makes no sense. According to the "Data availability" section you have uploaded the EBC data to EBAS. They do not accept such double corrections for level 0, level 1 or level 2. So, if you really have done this you should recorrect and resubmit the data to EBAS. Follow the ACTRIS recommendations and refer to them in the paper. After all, this is a “measurement report” so you should properly refer to the corrections you have done.
L200. Caption of Figure 2. The word “trend” is wrong word here. Diurnal cycle is the right term.
Trend is either increasing or decreasing in a longterm data. The same applies to the caption of Fig. S4, correct both.
L214. “The AAE is similar between the sites, with small differences likely owing to different BC sources.” Actually, the AAE values are different in a logical way. The AAE difference may be due to the BC size distribution and coating. At the rural site GMD is larger than at the urban site which may well lead to a lower AAE, in line with the simulations by Virkkula, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 3707–3719, 2021.
L215-219. Table 2. Add also the corresponding values of rBC from the SP-AMS. Discuss the differences between the rBC(SP2) and rBC(SP-AMS) also in the text, now there is no text about the rBC(SP-AMS). There are not many papers that would show both rBC(SP2) and rBC(SP-AMS), if any, I don't know (for you to find out...), so such a comparison would be very valuable.
For the rBC modes in the table, give also their widths as GSD. And again, for both rBC(SP2) and rBC(SP-AMS).
L275-276. “... mean mass of 0.062 ± 0.001 fg and 0.26 ± 0.01 fg, respectively, corresponding to effective densities of 0.95 ± 0.01 g cm-3 and 1.19 ± 0.02 g cm-3.” How was this calculated? Give at least a reference, rather also the equation.