The authors have written a good scientific manuscript with a detailed discussion and analysis. Several minor adjustment should be done in order to increase its quality:

1. This manuscript is a continuance study of Hoffer et al. (2021) where used the tracers found in the study for assessing PM10 concentrations by waste burning in several cities of two countries. Therefore, the authors were stated that there has been no study on the estimated mas contribution.  However, I found a study which might be similar: https://doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.2c00243; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112793. Please be sure to highlight the gaps of the written topic
2. Since the focus of this study are the plastic burning, it is also suggested to justify the title directly to the plastic burning in the residential areas.
3. The habits to burn the waste is also induced by the lack of commitment from government and community as reported here https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-022-01430-9. Therefore, this information or suggestion can also be added in the introduction (2nd paragraph) or revising the conclusion (for last sentences in the current version)
4.  It is suggested to revise the sub section and make a reorganization of the manuscript. One of the problems is on the sub section 2.1. which should be divided into 2 sub section which include the sampling site and PM10 filter sampling.
5. The sampling location presented in Table 1 should be defined. Even though the acronyms of, for instance, BUD, has been informed in the body text, the authors are suggested to add 1 column to put the meaning of each location acronyms in the table. It is also recommended to add the meaning of each representative location (e.g. rural, residential, background location, road, and so on) in the table.
6. The calculation of EF and how the EF can be generated are not presented in the methods section. 
7. As it is informed in many part of the manuscript, the uncertainties are really high. However, it is suggested to add the methods for uncertainties assessment in the methods section.
8. In the analysis, (L410) the authors mention that the calculation reveals that the household waste are burned 8-15%. How this information can be counted? The average waste generation or information related to waste management in both country should also be stated in the manuscript.
9. How this result can be generated or interpolated in the city context? please briefly explained in the methods

Paper is well and I do not see very significant issues.

My biggest concern is related to the table 1. The authors tries to hide enormous standard deviation expressing it as RSD. It is well known that in some cases RSD can be over 100, but, to be honest in your work, you should provide different measure to describe shape of PM concentrations distributions. It expect additional measures as Inter Quartile Range (IQR) or median, quartile 1st and 3rd.

Figures 2-4 have missing bar - exclude tick on axis or add missing bar. If it was intended to show different countries, it failed.

During the reading of Tables 2 and 3 I found very significant concern - what are uncertainties of these estimates? Did you even included any uncertainty assessment of estimates?

In conclusion, although I see that your study is important and results are good and interesting, you should slightly more underline what you achieved.