General comments:

The work conducts comprehensive comparison of different cluster dynamics-based parameterizations for SA-DMA nucleation by integrating box-model simulations, 3-D modeling, and in-situ observations. It is found that ACDC_DB performs well in modeling 3-D NPF for both winter and summer in Beijing and shows promise for application in various atmospheric environments. Furthermore, ACDC_RM_SF0.5 exhibits effective applicability at ~280 K, but has limitations in predicting J_1.4 at elevated T. While Dynamic_Sim is applicable for simulating NPF in polluted atmospheres but makes significant overestimation of J_1.4 under conditions of high T and low CS. 

The topic discussed in this paper is highly meaningful for developing parameterizations for various nucleation systems. The reported results are clearly presented and are relevant to the scope of Atmos. Chem. Phys. I recommend publication of this manuscript after consideration of the following comments.

Specific comments:

1)    Lines 94-95: Please explain briefly the reason for considering such three simplifications within Dynamics_Sim.

2)    Line 281: To make a clear understanding among readers, it would be better to provide the concept of the chemical initial and boundary conditions in WRF-Chem/R2D-VBS simulations.

3)    Figure 6C: It can be noted that ACDC_DB and Dynamic_Sim also exhibit an underestimation of averaged PNSDs in the 2-100 nm range in comparison to observation. Can the authors account for the cause of this phenomenon？

Technical corrections:

1)    Lines 143-144: “n and m represent the number of SA and DMA molecules in a cluster” should be “m and n represent the number of SA and DMA molecules in a cluster”.

2)    Lines 465 and 482: “ACDC_RM” should be “ACDC_RM_SF0.5”.

3)    Supporting Information, lines 37 and 38: “A: ΔG = 13.5 kcal/mol; B: ΔG = 12.9 kcal/mol” should be “A: ΔG = -13.5 kcal/mol; B: ΔG = -12.9 kcal/mol”.

This manuscript compared the simulations of new particle formation rate from sulfuric acid (H₂SO₄) and dimethylamine (DMA) by different molecular cluster kinetics modeling under various conditions (e.g., different T and CS) and aims to find applicable parameterizations for 3-D NPF modeling in Beijing. The provided results indicated that: ACDC_DB, an ACDC derived parameterization, incorporated into WRF-Chem/R2D-VBS model can effectively reproduce particle formation rates and PNSDs evolution for both winter and summer in Beijing. The content of this paper is useful for developing parameterizations aiming at predicting or simulating NPF in urban areas. The manuscript is well written and the topic fits the scope of Atmos. Chem. Phys. I recommend publication of this manuscript after responding the following comments.

Specific comments:

1. The authors should clarify the advantage or difference of the parameterizations developed using ACDC to the one used in Dynamic_Sim. On the words, why the authors developed ACDC based parameterizations rather than making iteration on the base of Dynamic_Sim in L173-176 and in the introduction part. Moreover, except for making comparison with Dynamic_Sim, what’s the consideration of setting the ACDC_BC coupling with three simplifications?
2. The look-up table approach has its limitation due to the ignorance of the explicit interactions of clusters with gas phase precursors and pre-existing particles. The author should add some discussion about the disadvantage of the applied look-up table approach and discuss about the possible conditions that may lead to the biased simulation results.
3. In Figure S8, it seems to me that ACDC_RM_SF0.5 overestimate the formation rate by a factor of 2 at 293K, please check the simulation results or discuss the possible reasons. Would this influence the 3D model simulations during summer, leading to the overestimation of J1.4? Moreover, Figure S8 also indicated that ACDC_DB and Dynamic_Sim overestimate the formation rate more at 293K compared with at 278K, would this be the reason of the overestimation during summer?

Technical comments:

1. L90-91: check the reference
2. Lines 465 and 482: “ACDC_RM” should be “ACDC_RM_SF0.5”
3. Line 476-478 and other parts in section 3.1: I suggest using “overestimate” and “underestimate” instead of “applicable “and “suitable “, since the discussion in section 3.1 is the evaluation of different simplifications on the molded J1.4 for ADCD_RM and ACDC_DB.
4. Line 525: Replace the comma of ‘ACDC_RM show higher concentrations,’ with period.