Thanks for your revised submission of this manuscript. Although you provided a thorough and mostly satisfactory response to the reviewers, a new review of your revised manuscript finds persistent issues that need to be addressed prior to publication. In particular:

- Please ensure that relevant information provided in your response is also included in the revised manuscript. The new referee report indicates that some of the important information included in your response did not propagate into your revised manuscript: "It also seems like some comments have been addressed with a correct response in the author’s reply to the referee comments, but the necessary/appropriate change in the revised manuscript has not been done."

- Please carefully review and improve your manuscript for proper English grammar. The manuscript still suffers from numerous issues, as noted by the reviewer.

- Please carefully address all of the general and specific comments raised in the new referee report, and either ensure that clarifications are included in the revised manuscript or explain why you feel that specific updates to the manuscript are unnecessary.

- After responding to these issues and providing a revised manuscript, your paper will be carefully considered for publication in The Cryosphere.

Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions.

Dear Drs. Wang et al -

Thank you for submitting a revised draft of your manuscript. You have adequately addressed the major science concerns that were raised by reviewers, but before the manuscript can be accepted for publication in The Cryosphere it will need careful editing for English grammar and consistency.

Consistency:

- The abstract states that "Although the mineral dust was assumed to be the highest contributor to the mass loading of ILAPs...", and yet the prior sentence reports larger mean mass concentrations for OC than for mineral dust. So why is it assumed that mineral dust is the highest contributor to mass loadings? These two sentences seem inconsistent. This is one example of why the manuscript needs careful examination from multiple people to ensure that the results are reported consistently.

- Table 1 is cut off at the edge of the page and cannot even be read in its entirety.


English grammar:

The paper needs careful editing by one or more people who are fluent in English. Readers will discover grammatical errors starting with the first sentence of the Introduction.


Data sharing policy:

Please read the journal's data policy at: https://www.the-cryosphere.net/about/data_policy.html. Prior to publication, your data should be posted in a publicly-accessible repository, and a link to the data should be provided in the Data Availability section of the manuscript. This is particularly important for new measurements such as those reported here.

I do not plan to send out your manuscript again for additional peer review. After your manuscript is *carefully* cleaned up, I expect we will be able to publish it in The Cryosphere.

Thank you, and kind regards -
Mark Flanner