Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection  Cai & Jiang  second review
The authors have done a good job in answering most of my comments and those of the other rewiewer.
I still, however, think that additional explanations are needed to a couple of my initial concerns.
1. Derivation of A7 and A6 in the Appendix and double summation term in eq. A7:
Isn't the message in A7 selfevident? I.e. the rate of change of particle concentration in range k....u is
equal to condensational growth into range (I) minus condensation out of range (Ju) plus coagulation into
range minus coagulation out of range ?
and
In A6, the rate of change of particle concentration above size k is equal to condensational growth into
the range (I) minus collision rate in the range ?
In my view, the only slightly difficult part to formulate is the coagulation into range term in A7, and this
is not thoroughly explained here (and perhaps, slightly wrong?).
Let's say that we have a linear bin structure in volume so that v1 = 1, v2 = 2, ....., vk = k, ..... and we
are looking at the range from 7 to 10, i.e. dN(7,10)/dt.
According to the indexing in eq. A5, the following indexpairs contribute to the coagulation sourceterm
into the range: 1 and 5, 2 and 4, 3 and 3, 4 and 2, 5 and 1, 1 and 6, 2 and 5, 3 and 4, 4 and 3, 5 and 2,
4 and 3, 1 and 7, 2 and 6, 3 and 5, 4 and 4, 5 and 3, 6 and 2, 7 and 1.
The factor (1/2) takes care of the double counting and this is correct.
But what about the 5 first pairs in the list? They also produce particles into the range 6 to 7 which is not
in the range 7 to 10 ? Please explain!
Also, what if you have a different bin structure, say logarithmically spaced? Then, the conditions under
the summation term on the third term of the right hand side of equation A7, i.e. v(i) + v(j+1) = v(g) cannot
hold? If the equation in its current form is only applicable for a linearly spaced bin structure, it must be
clearly stated.
In my original review, I suggested removing most of the derivations in the Appendix. As they are located
in the Appendix, they might as well stay there, if the authors wish so.  

Please consider carefully the few remaining comments by the referee.
Editor 
After reading the revised paper and final responses to referee comments, I still have a few minor issues to be considered:
Response to the third comment by the referee: I do not think it is enough to say that the third term is overestimated. The authors should, at the very least, explain shortly why this term is overestimated. Also, It would be very good to know what “slightly” mean in this context. Are we taking about differences <1%, a few %, <10 % or what?
Lines 158159: I am not sure you can call accommodation coefficient and coagulation efficiency the same because the former refers to condensation and the latter to coagulation.
Line 245: Can you measure the nucleation intensity simply by looking at particle number concentration? What is primary particle number emissions are very large, as they can be in polluted cities? Would change rates in number concentrations be a better measure? Please open this a bit.
Grammatical comments:
The article (the) is missing from several places where it should be (lines 9, 10, 14, 16, 32, 41, 44, 70, 124, 157, 167, 175, 223, 236, 238, 254, 255, 270, 273, 274
criterions  > criteria (lines 9, 92, 193, 263)
Line 14: … and formulae used widely in the literature.
line 37: has  > had
line 40: …before they grow into larger sizes.
line 53: concentrations
line 66: …narrower size ranges, such as …
line 147: … there are no tall buildings nearby.
line 177: This indicates that the influence…
line 180: beyond what?
line 184: The reason for
line 192: what is meant by “proper large”? properly large?
line 209: bad wording ( is because that the) 
It seems to me that their might be a small bug left in the second term of the third row of equation A7: should the index be (k2, uk+1) rather than (k2, uk1), and the same with N? (so, should i+j be u1 for this terms?) Please correct if you agree with this.
Editor 