The main focus of this paper is to present new knowledge on the variability of the fluorescence depolarization ratio and on the estimation of the fluorescence impact on the water vapor Raman measurements.

General comments

The English text will be improved once the proposed corrections are accepted and performed. 

Some citations are missing in various places and some others are proposed to be added (eg. lines 47, 81, 132, 224, 289).

It is not convincing that the detected aerosol layers correspond to smoke only, and not to other aerosol sources, as no air mass backtrajectory analysis with height has been shown. The authors shoud add these graphs in the supplement section.

How convincing are the "dry smoke events" mentioned in the manuscript, when a complete air mass trajectory analysis is missing?

Specific comments

line 51: The paper of Wang et al., 2023, has to be omitted as it refers to a multi-wavelength elastic-Raman-fluorescence lidar system and not to a single-channel lidar as mentioned in the manuscript, as this placement there is missleading.

line 119: I would ask the authors to provide in a Supplement section a new figure detailing the transmission spectra (zoomin on the Transmission curves for T between 0-20%)  of the filters at the 5 wavelengths mentioned, so that the readers can see (in detail) the overlapping transmission curves between these filters. Based on Veselovskii et al., (2023, Fig. 1) we can clearly see these overlapping regions, so the authors have to discuss on any induced errors in the detected fluorescence signals and their role on the accuracy of the retrieved aerosol parameters.  

line 216: See comments there (about the definition of the nv parameter etc.).

page 21: For clarity reasons limit the longitude up to 80^o only (Fig. 2).

For all additional comments please refer to the attached pdf (amt-2023-210-supplement.pdf file).

It is a notable contribution to extending existing fluorescence and water vapor Raman lidar techniques and an interesting topic for the lidar community. The context and study goal are clear, and the results don’t show major errors and omissions. However, there are many presentation styles, grammar, and typo errors. Is this a haste-writing? Therefore, I recommend it to be considered for publication after some revisions.

In general, the structure of this manuscript needs to be improved. Some part of the abstract is read like a conclusion, such as line 31-38, while the conclusion is too detailed about the results discussion without extracting the main points. The introduction also can be more converging to the aims of this study, and a better context is needed between paragraphs, e.g. line 71-72, it seems water vapor just come out without connection with the above. For the scientific part, the typical values of fluorescence depolarization ratio (line 277-280), the hygroscopic growth cases in BL(line 307), and the assumption of “change of aerosol composition” (line 315) as well as “change in particle morphology may affect the depolarization ratio of fluorescence” “at RH about 90%, δF increases up to 70%.” (means more spherical higher δF?), these above probably should be discussed, because it seems the results or shreds of evidence do not support them well.

Details:

The title “Derivation of aerosol fluorescence and water vapor Raman 1 depolarization ratios…” is easy to mis-understand, “Derivation of depolarization ratios of aerosol fluorescence and water vapor Raman backscatters…” might be better.

Abstract:

Line 16: “The total scattered power of” means to “the total backscattered power of”?

Line 19: regarding the same source of smoke, where is this measurement taken place relative to Moscow, so it is at Lille?

Line 27: “…fluorescence at 513 nm while, in the upper…” to “fluorescence at 513 nm, while in the upper”

Line 36: should be “the strongest…”

Line 38-40: suggest to re-write this sentence since it is difficult to understand.

Introduction:

Line 57: “In fluorescence spectroscopy..” a comma is missing. And what is the motivation to introduce the anisotropy?

Line 65-67: check the grammar.

Line 67: “minimal” should be “maximal”?

Line 68: it is unclear. Why the molecule rotation could increase the depolarization?

Line 80: Could the authors please be more specific about this issue “fluorescence still remains the issue”?

Line 84: “weakly” to “weak”

Line 149: “For both channels” a comma missing

Results：

Line 293: “High depolarization ratios” means particle depolarization ratios? at 532 nm?

Line 295: “particle depolarization” to “particle depolarization ratio”?

Line 355: The lowest

Line 358: please give a definition of the “ratio”

Line 360: please explain how is the standard deviation obtained.

Line 406: the depolarization ratio of water vapor is due to the mixing with fluorescence?

Line 410-411: please check the grammar and re-write the sentence.

Line 251, 312, 354, 355, 375, and so on…: “5 – 21 May” and  “9-16 June” Please unify the format everywhere, and also the symbols for indicating the parameters. “1.8%÷2.0%” to “1.8%-2.0%”? “On 26-27 and 28-29 May the uncertainty” There are a lot of such format or typo issues, I will not point out one by one.

Conclusion：

Line 426-427：I suggest to remove this sentence as there is no any loss without it.

In general, make it more compact, and emphasize on the main findings and contributions.