This work compiled a comprehensive anthropogenic chlorine emission inventory for China. It improved the authors’ previous ACEIC inventory by including the sources from cooking, usage of disinfectant, and pesticide. The paper provides valuable data for chlorine emissions in China. Some parts of the calculation and discussion are not very clear and need improvement.

Major comments:

1. I would suggest to rearrange the introduction to make it clearer. Paragraph 2-5 have some overlaps and inconsistent, making the logic confusing.
2. The most significant finding of this work that differs from previous studies may be a large source of HOCl and Cl2 from the usage of chlorine-containing disinfectants. It seems that the estimate of this part of emissions (section 2.2.6) assumes that chlorine gases volatilized from the water will be directly released to the atmosphere. However, many water treatment plants, hospitals, and swimming pools are indoors, some of the waste gases are also treated. This needs more discussion.
3. For the part of comparing with other works, the authors frequently attributed the difference to the use of different methods without other explanation. Please provide a clearer discussion. For instance, why different methods are used? which one is better? suggestions to reduce the uncertainties of the methodology ....
4. Please make sure all the numbers used in the calculations have proper references.

Specific comments:

- For the name RCEI and statement such as in line 46, it is hard to say whether HCl and pCl can be grouped into reactive chlorine species as they are not that reactive and fast producing Cl radicals in the atmosphere.

- Paragraph 2, you said research on anthropogenic chlorine emission in China is very limited and rarely considered in air quality simulations, but later you provide a series of examples in paragraph 3 and 4. I would suggest removing those statements and merging them with paragraph 4.

- Paragraph 3, this part starts with saying emission inventory in foreign countries, but no related information are introduced.

- line 87, which sources were overlooked, such as?

- line 89, you may want to summarize the pros and cons of these studies at least briefly before this statement. Why did the previous estimates differ so largely? What are the uncertainties?

- line 92, what is basic data? Do you mean activity data?

- line 116, please provide references for the release ratio.

- line 144, based on your statement, MM should equal to 0.5 for Cl2 as you defined it as the ratios of the molar mass of chlorine atom to the molecular weight of chlorine species.

- line 177-178, please provide references for the chlorine removal efficiencies.

- Section 2.2.6, the whole part involves assumptions that the water in the facilities (water treatment plant, hospital, swimming pool, etc.) are open to the atmosphere and the waste gases are released without any treatment. This doesn’t sound very true.

- Section 2.2.6b, it is not clear how the calculation was conducted.

- line 496, why are the emission factors and control technologies different? Are your estimations better? Same for the entire section 4.1, when you said different results were due to different calculation methods, could you please elaborate more and maybe demonstrate that your methods are more appropriate?

- Figure 2 provides the same information as Figure 1d. Why put it as an individual figure? Also, it looks like the proportion of chlorine emissions from different sources of disinfection, not the proportion of actives as the figure title described.

- Figure 4: please introduce the green line in the label or figure captain.

- Figure 5: it is quite strange to use the unit of Mg/grid/yr, especially when no grid information is provided in figure captain. I would suggest using a unit of Mg/m2/yr or something similar.

- Table 6: could you please also include emission numbers or ranges? I am not clear what useful information can be provided by comparing uncertainties with different studies.