In this study, the authors considered and implemented different treatments of below-cloud scavenging. Compared to the previous scheme that is based on Slinn (1984), a new scheme that considers multiphase hydrometeors explicitly from the microphysic scheme shows a better agreement with observations. In addition, a semi-empirical model based on Wang et al. (2014) shows a better performance than the previous scheme (Slinn, 1984). Overall, however, the differences are quite small especially for nitrate and ammonium aerosols and their wet depositions. I would recommend adding more supportive analyses or conclusive remarks for NO3 and NH4 species. 

Specific comments:

1. Abstract is too long, so please make it more concise. Also, I wonder if the references are necessary in the abstract.

2. I wonder how equation (2) can be connected to the other equations (4–6) that describe the scavenging coefficient. 

3. Line 203. a “uniform” environmental temperature threshold can be misleading. May be “constant” or “fixed” better?

4. Line 309. “the modeling science” sounds awkward. 

5. Line 319. I’m not sure if this assertion is right. Particulate nitrate concentrations can be higher in winter than in summer. Considering that HNO3 gas is very soluble, either HNO3 and particulate NO3 would be well scavenged by cloud water. I think the amount of emitted NOx can be higher in winter, so recommend seeing if NOx emissions are higher in winter than in summer. 

6. Line 335–343. Explanation for sulfate seems straightforward. However, nitrate and ammonium do not. My question is why the model performance for NO3 and NH4 wet deposition is better with the new schemes compared to the old one. As seen in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9, the difference in NO3 and NH4 fluxes vary greatly across regions and their significant scores are below a 90% confident level over the most of the region. 

7. Line 388–399. I think that a comparison with a previous study, Makar et al. (2018) is not an apple-to-apple comparison. As the authors mentioned, in this study, they updated dry deposition, so the higher dry deposition velocities in this study than in the previous study can be a reason of the better performance of this study. If possible, how about comparing the new below-cloud scavenging schemes to the old one when the same dry deposition scheme is used?

8. I wonder if the better agreements with new schemes and corresponding explanation (reasoning) can be consistently applied to all species (SO4, NO3, and NH4). Also, wonder if the improvements can be due to some wrong reasons. 

9. Overall, figures need to be improved to highlight clearly the differences or conclusions that they want to deliver. Please adjust colors or value scales accordingly. Also, I’d recommend combining Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 if possible; for example, you can add hatched lines or stipples over regions only where the score >= 1 on Fig. 8. Same for Fig. 10 and Fig. 11, and Fig. 13–15.