Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting the revised manuscript. I have now read with great interest your manuscript, reviewers' comments, and your responses. Thank you for your careful work on addressing the comments from both reviewers. From my own reading, I feel that the manuscript requires minor revisions before publishing it to the AMT journal.

Comments:

1) Section 3, Page 33, lines 4-7: “The AMF look-up tables are calculated on a 1o x 1 o latitude-longitude grid using NO2 vertical profiles from the TM5-MP model (Williams et al., 2017)”. This is incorrect. The AMFs are calculated for each individual field of view (FOV) or pixel. However, NO2 profiles used in the retrievals are taken from TM5 model at 1 deg x 1 deg resolution. Please, correct the statement.

2) Section 4.2, page 36, lines 5-9: You described two reasons for the observed difference between MAX-DOAS and surface NO2 data. The discrepancies could also arise from errors in either MAX-DOAS retrievals or surface NO2 data. I could not locate instrument type(s) used at the surface sites. Some commercial NO2 monitors have biases that are well documented.

3) Section 4.4.2, page 39, lines 22-23 : “…..the surface albedo values used in the TROPOMI retrieval have a spatial resolution of 13 x 24 km2 (OMI spatial resolution). In reality, inside an area of 13 x 24 km2 in an urban environment…”. This is not correct. The spatial resolution of surface reflectivity used in the TROPOMI algorithm is 0.5 deg x 0.5 deg from Kleipool et al (2008). It is a monthly mean climatology. Please, correct the statement. You may also want to cite other recent works on the impact of surface reflectivity on NO2 retrievals (e.g., GOME-2 NO2 DLR and OMI NO2 from NASA).

I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript soon.

Best Regards,

Lok Lamsal