Thank you for your e-mail. This is our response to the remaining remarks from the typesetter: 

TS1 According to our standards, changes like this must first be approved by the editor, as data have already been reviewed, discussed and approved. Please provide a detailed explanation for those changes that can be forwarded to the editor. Please note that this process will be available online after publication. Upon approval, we will make the appropriate changes. Thank you for your understanding.

The required change is due to a typo in a paragraph added in the revised version of the manuscript. In the Author's response file uploaded on 18 July, in our Reply to Review 1 (RC1), we included the correct values but unfortunately, in the revised manuscript there was a typo in one of the values taken from the literature review of Martin et al. (2009). On page 10, line 37 should read “up to 10^9 m^-2 s^-1, e.g., in Manchester, London, Edinburgh,”.
The correct paragraph, as submitted in our Author's response file uploaded on 18 July, reads:
"We report typical particle number fluxes of 10^4–10^6 m^-2 s^-1. This is several orders of magnitude lower than urban particle number fluxes. Typical urban particle number fluxes measured by eddy covariance with CPCs are up to 10^9 m^-2 s^-1, e.g., in Manchester, London, Edinburgh, Gothenburg (Martin et al., 2009), and 0.9 x 10^9 m^-2 s^-1 in Edinburgh (Dorsey et al., 2002)…"
 

