See the attachment.

This manuscript investigates the impacts of anthropogenic aerosols on a winter snowfall event over the Guanzhong Basin using WRF-Chem, with a focus on disentangling aerosol–radiation interactions (ARIs) and aerosol–cloud interactions (ACIs). The topic is scientifically important, especially given the large uncertainties in aerosol–precipitation interactions under polluted conditions. The study is generally well structured, and the model reasonably reproduces observed pollutants and precipitation. The attempt to separate ARI and ACI contributions and the identification of contrasting responses between GZB and surrounding regions are valuable. However, the manuscript still has several critical issues in physical interpretation, experimental design, and result robustness, which need to be addressed before publication.

1. Wet scavenging refers to the effect of precipitation on aerosols, rather than the influence of aerosols on precipitation. In addition, the phrase “decreased solar radiation” is not appropriate to describe the impact of aerosols on precipitation.
2. As shown in Figure 3, compared with the simulation results of PM₂.₅, O₃, and NO₂, the simulation errors of SO₂ are relatively larger. The authors should provide a clear explanation for these discrepancies.
3. The boundary between the Guanzhong Basin (GZB) and its surrounding areas (GZBs) should be added in all figures to improve readability. Furthermore, the comparison of accumulated precipitation results should be separated between GZB and GZBs to ensure that no systematic differences are overlooked.
4. The distinction between PM₂.₅ (in Section 3.2) and near-surface PM₂.₅ (in Section 3.3) is unclear. The authors should explicitly state how near-surface PM₂.₅ concentrations are calculated from the model simulation results.
5. As shown in lines 190–193 and Figure 6, the statement “the single scattering albedo is about 0.88, indicating a strong absorbing atmosphere over GZB+GZBs” requires more careful validation: First, when comparing absorbing AOD with total AOD, the absorbing component contributes only about 10%, suggesting that non-absorbing aerosols may dominate. Second, as mentioned above, aerosols can decrease PBLH through ACIs, while absorbing aerosols can heat the near-surface atmosphere by absorbing solar radiation, potentially leading to an increase in PBLH. More detailed analysis should therefore be provided, including aerosol layer height, temperature profiles, and related diagnostics.
6. Absorbing aerosols typically induce significant heating at the layer where they are present, leading to cooling of the atmosphere below, while exerting relatively minor influence above. However, as shown in Figure 7, no distinct warming layer is observed. In addition, although the positive and negative variations in temperature and water vapor content appear relatively consistent, the patterns of vertical velocity differ. For instance, in some regions both cooling and warming are evident, yet the corresponding vertical velocities remain positive. This discrepancy requires further clarification.
7. The manuscript presents an interesting case study on aerosol impacts on snowfall using WRF-Chem, but the physical interpretation of aerosol–radiation interactions (ARIs) remains insufficiently supported. In particular, the study lacks a quantitative analysis of radiative heating rates or flux divergence, making it difficult to attribute the simulated temperature changes solely to ARIs rather than dynamical adjustments.
8. The separation of aerosol–radiation interactions (ARIs) and aerosol–cloud interactions (ACIs) using sensitivity experiments may introduce methodological uncertainties. Given the nonlinear coupling between radiation, thermodynamics, and microphysics, the simple differencing approach (F_BASE minus F_ARI0) may not fully isolate ARI effects. The authors should discuss the potential nonlinearity and associated uncertainties more explicitly.
9. The use of a wide range of anthropogenic emission scaling factors (AESF from 1/8 to 8) raises concerns regarding the realism of the experimental design. Such extreme perturbations may not represent realistic atmospheric conditions and could lead to artificial nonlinear responses, including the reported threshold behavior. A justification based on observed aerosol variability is needed.