Dear Authors,

I have now received two reviewers' comments on your manuscript. Please address them thoughtfully (especially R2's Q5), and let me know if you have any questions.

R1:
1. Section 2.1, spelling of DMS is incorrect
2. Section 2.2, author used 2011 emission data to simulate 2016 case. Section 4.1 mentioned that the comparison between model and observation can be due to emission uncertainty. But this study does not include any discussions related to the emission uncertainty.
3.In Fig. 3, why can use of large city areas prevent non-linearity? Considering the emission characteristics, are the PM compositions reasonable? close to the real world observation?
4.Section 5.1. For Paris, the largest peaks are predicted on December 01st and on 02nd (e.g Fig. 2). On December 1st, the “City” contribution represented in average 44% of the PM10. Figure 2 only presents variation from Dec 2.
5. This study used an old scenario to demonstrate the impact. Authors need to include discussions about the more recent update regarding the system development, such as emission inventory, etc, in the manuscript.

R2:
1. The remark on the basis for the choice of the precipitation intensity has not been fully addressed. Please complete the answer and manuscript.
2. A short discussion on the choice of square shape for the areas (as in the response to referees) should appear in the revised paper.


Cheers,
Min-Hui