The authors compare output from two general circulation models that were nudged to reanalysis conditions against aerosol measurements taken at a boreal forest ground site. The analysis includes both Eulerian and Lagrangian perspectives. The latter is used to infer if aerosol sinks and sources are plausible in both models. The manuscript is of great relevance and should be published after major revisions.

Major concerns

I think the manuscript (not considering appendix and supporting material) is too long and should be more concise in style. A good example is the “Conclusion and Outlook” section, which spans over 2 pages. While there are key conclusions in this section, it is hard to find them when mingled with discussion material. Instead, the authors could split this section into a conclusion sections (as also suggested by the ACP guidelines) that is very concise and an outlook (or else discussion) section. In the same manner, the authors should attempt to shorten sections 3-5, by perhaps moving discussion-style material to a dedicated discussion section.

Throughout the Lagrangian analysis the authors mostly show median values. I’m wondering how large the interquartile range is and whether the main conclusions are affected when considering this range.

Minor concerns

l. 57 Please define “sectional approaches”.

ll. 428ff (and Fig. 3). Why is rainfall rate increasing closer to the site?

ll. 805ff. Is there a chance that “in-cloud” and “clear-sky” groups correspond to very different regions (with unique local aerosol sources)?

Typos/style

ll. 923-924 Please check this sentence.

l. 943 “extremeties”

Publisher’s note: the supplement to this comment was edited on 16 July 2025. The adjustments were minor without effect on the scientific meaning.