I would like to thank the authors for incorporating the suggestions made by both reviewers; however, there are some important key points that need to be properly addressed before I can accept the manuscript.

Reviewer #2:
1. Fig. 2 caption: I thought the pink boxes indicated the high-CL events. Please double check.
2. Fig. 3d: The wind direction should be averaged arithmetically. Vector averaging should be used to do so. Check the following link for instructions: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/44621/calculate-average-wind-direction
3. No x-axis label for Fig. 8 in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #3:
There is a technical error still in the revised version and need to be fixed before publication. The figure 3 (o) left axis is not well adjusted.

Editor:
1. The readability and the grammar of the manuscript need to be deeply improved. It is highly recommended that the manuscript is reviewed by a native English speaker.
2. In the abstract several terms are defined; however, they are only used once. Please only use an abbreviation when a specific term is going to be used several times. For example, there is no need to use the following abbreviations in the abstract: ACSM, DAS, H-TDMA, CCN, and OA.
3. On the other hand, the authors define the same term several times along the manuscript. It is recommended that a term is defined the first time it is used and later on only the abbreviation is used. For example, H-Cl should be defined in L15 and not in L26.
4. Figures S3 and S4 are not called in the main text.
5. Figures S5 and S6 cannot be called before Figures S2, S3, and S4.
L29-30: “Ammonium Chloride” should be “ammonium chloride”
L35: Add a reference after “budgets”
L39: “is crucial to predict the” should be “is crucial to better predict the”
L41: Delete “atmospheric conditions”
L56: It seems that “counter” is misplaced.
L58-61. Improve the grammar.
L62: “Delhi’s atmosphere to understand” should be “Delhi’s atmosphere to better understand”
L64-65: “to severe air quality”. Do the authors mean “to severely poor/low air quality”?
L70-71: Improve the grammar.
L79-80: “hygroscopicity. Hence, it is essential to measure size-resolved aerosol hygroscopicity in Delhi's atmosphere and investigate its role in the context of high chloride”. This is redundant, therefore, I suggest deleting it.
L83-84: H-TDMA was already defined.
L84: Add the model and manufacturer of the MPSS.
L87: “The lab-2 is situated at the height of 15 m a.g.l. and lab-2 is 50 m apart” should be “The lab-2 is situated at the height of 15 m a.g.l. and is 50 m apart”
L99: “for aerosol and sheath respectively” should be “for aerosol flow and sheath flow, respectively.”
L103: “Both the DMAs were”. Fix it.
L110: MPSS was already defined.
L111: “A Detailed description” should be “A detailed description”
L111: “ACSM was” should be “The ACSM was”
L113: “ratio (m/z) m/z 10 to m/z 140” should be “ratio (m/z) 10 to m/z 140.”
Lines 111-118 need to be combined with Lines 165-175 in one single section.
L167: “Patel et al., 2021.” Fix it.
L220-223: RH, T, WD, WS, PNSD, and OA were already defined.
L226. RH and T were already defined.
L243: WS was already defined.
From here on, I stopped checking the grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Please check out the rest of the manuscript.

Dear Anil Kumar Mandariya and Coauthors,

Thank you for addressing most of the comments and suggestions from the previous round of revisions. Also, I congratulate you for significantly improving the readability of the document. However, additional technical details need to be fixed before the manuscript can be accepted for its publication in ACP.

Technical comments:

1. In the supplement file it is mentioned "Number of Figures: 13"; however, there are only 12 figures.
2. Figures S12 is not called in the main text
3. Figures S5 (Line 227) and S6 (Line 238) are called before Fig. S4 (Line 267)
4. Given that the order of the figures from the supplement were changed, please doble check that they are properly called in the main text.

Luis Ladino