Dear Authors,

You have obviously made a great effort to improve the manuscript according to the referees' suggestions. Yet, I still have some comments that I would like to see addressed before the manuscript can be published. These are mostly about missing literature or internet references, the use of abbreviations, and some grammatical corrections. More importantly, I have two scientific questions: first, how can the results of your method be validated? Although your results look very plausible, validation of a new method is crucial. And second, how useful would it be to provide seasonal PM2.5 maps? The contribution of rice straw burning, for example, clearly depends on the time of year.

Detailed comments:
1. Literature (or internet) references to Google Earth/Streetview, OpenStreetmap, and Arcmap / ArcGIS software are missing. Also an acknowledgment for the free use of data (Google and OpenStreetmap) is lacking.
Also other literature references, particularly to the activity data (Section 2.3.2) are missing. For example, cite the reference for the HECS as "Household Energy Consumption Survey (HECS)", Philippine Statistics Authority, https://psa.gov.ph/hecs, accessed on 7/7/2017.
2. Please pay attention to the abbreviations you use, such as PUV, MC/TC, etc. These need to be explained at least once in the text, preferably when they are first introduced. Alternatively, you can add a table with abbreviations, but as the manuscript contains many tables already I would recommend the first option.
3. Can you comment on seasonality? Your study is done on a yearly basis, but rice straw is only burnt in certain seasons.
4. Please add a paragraph about how these data can be validated to Section 5. Satellite-based monitoring is probably not possible due to the small scale of the study region, so what methods would you suggest?

Page 1
Line 6 - "air particulate matter (APM)" -> "particulate matter (PM)"
Line 8 - "...estimating the amount fine..." -> "...estimating the amount of fine..."

Page 2
Line 4 - "Sources of PM2.5 are caused by many man-made activities" -> "Enhancements in PM2.5 are mainly caused by various human activities"
Line 5 - "A common source of PM2.5..." -> "A common source of particles contributing to PM2.5..."
Line 7 - "(such as CORINAIR and AP 42)" -> literature references are missing here
Line 13 - "conducted" -> "constructed"
Line 16 - "sourced" -> "determined"
Line 18 - "which produces" -> "producing"
Line 26 - "This method is specifically meant to explore this method " -> "This study is specifically meant to explore this method "

Page 3
Lines 17-19 - do you have literature references for this method?
Lines 26-28 - "(The collaged image used in Google Earth is sourced from processed images from Landsat and the European Space Agency (ESA)’s Copernicus program). "The Google Earth images used consist of post-processed Landsat images from the European Space Agency (ESA)’s Copernicus program."

Page 4
Line 2 - "Even so, " -> "Despite these disadvantages, "
Lines 8-15 (and accompanying Fig. 4) - Land cover type and expected dominating sources of PM are being mixed here. Please be more consistent, for example by changing the map to contain only the land type (i.e., substituting "fuels" by "traffic" and "grilling" by "market place" (What are commercial grilling establishments?) ). Then you can mention the assumed PM sources for each land use type in the text.
Line 28 - "sourced" -> "estimated"

Page 10
Line 15 - "GHGs" -> "greenhouse gases"

Figure 1. Change the caption to "Map of the Philippines and location of Cabanatuan City and some other major cities.", then add some major cities (or at least Manila) for reference.