In this paper entitled “Characteristics of snowpack chemistry on the coastal region in the northwestern Greenland Ice Sheet facing the North Water”, authors present an interesting observation of the effect that polynia North water (NOW) has on aerosol circulation and precipitation. the results are obtained from measurements of major ions, MSA and water isotopic analyses at 9 surface snow sampling sites, 2 snow-pit sites and 1 ice core. The text is well structured a detailed introduction, however the drafting in general should be improved as there are numerous repetitions and in some parts the reading is difficult to understand. In particular, the section 3.2 has to be improved. The conclusions have to be focused on the main goals obtained in this paper. It is very long and I suggest to summarize, avoiding to repeat the results and discussion.

• On lines105-106: “The snow sampling intervals at St. 3 were 0.02 m from 0.00 to 0.20 m and 0.03 m from 0.20 to 1.01 m, and the snow sampling intervals at St. 9 were 0.02 m from 0.00 to 0.20 m and 0.03 m from 0.30 to 1.08 m.” Why was the sampling interval changed?
• Lines 104, 108, 110. The authors told of precleaned materials and tools, but the cleaning procedure is not described.
• On line 107: Why was the ice core only sampled at one site? could be used for comparison at least with st3.
• Line 115: “methane sulfonate− (hereafter referred to as MSA)” already defined in the introduction
• Lines 116-118. Please add several details about the analytical methods or some references. In particular, the authors declared only the columns used for cations and anions without any specific important details such as dimensions. Other important details are flows, injection volumes, instruments used, suppressors, detectors. No specific details about the quantification methods are reported. I suppose that you used external calibration curves, but which are the linear ranges, and which are the RCM used for quantification. In summary, please improve the method and quality control section about the ionic analysis.
• Lines 117-119: Has the ion chromatography method used been validated in previous works? If yes, indicate them, if not, insert a section on validation.
• Lines 119-120: “The samples exhibiting large peak were measured multiple times, to confirm that any large peak in ion concentration was not caused by analytical errors.” What is meant?
• Lines 156-165 Text is not clear
• Section 3.2. Following stratigraphic analysis and evaluation of snowpack density, it may be more informative to express data in terms of fluxes rather than concentrations, so in the subsequent data analysis one could avoid distinguishing peaks attributed to atmospheric deposition from those of melting and refreezing
• Lines 188–190: Introducing all figures at the beginning of the section may lead to confusion. Since the discussion begins with Fig. 5, it would be more effective to present the figures sequentially, in alignment with the narrative.
• Line 194: “We applied the concentration unit as μeq L−” Information that is already made explicit in the following graphs
• Line 201: “We suggest that the spatial variation in the δ18O results from water vapor transport from the southern coast to the northern inland area by southerly winds.” Might it be useful to indicate figure 9 by referring to the direction of the prevailing winds?
• Line 210. Please add “(figure 6)” to help readers or start the sentence introducing the Figure 6 and its meaning.
• Figure 6: I suggest using the season and year instead of Roman numerals, as this would facilitate interpretation. This recommendation may also apply to the other figures. It is somewhat difficult to follow the discussion, as it requires frequently switching between different figures.
• Figure 6c, it is not clear why the authors used the difference between St3 and St.9, instead of a ratio.
• Line 217-218: “We suggest that the altitude gradient of the surface air temperature in winter was greater than that in summer in the western region of Prudhoe Land.” could this statement also be confirmed using atmospheric models for specific sites?
• Lines 306-309: there are many repetitions of “the concentration of MSA”. Same in the conclusions with “The snowpack on the western side of Prudhoe Land”.
• General comment on the conclusions: from figure 1 sampling sites 1 to 5 (or 6) are in a valley. has this aspect been taken into consideration? could it have an impact on the final considerations?

Other comments:

• In figure 1b it might be useful to include a dimensional scale to give an idea of the distances.
• Similarly, in figure 2, in addition to the distance expressed in latitude, could a conversion to km be useful?
• In figure 5, in addition to changing colours between total and nss values, it would also be useful to change the symbols