This manuscript presents a valuable long-term study of aerosol hygroscopicity in Wuhan, Central China, utilizing a 15-year dataset of ground-based polarization lidar observations. The authors successfully identify 192 cases of hygroscopic growth and provide a detailed statistical analysis of the hygroscopic growth parameter, exploring its inter-annual trends, seasonal variations, and vertical distribution.

The contribution of this work is significant. Long-term, vertically resolved datasets of aerosol hygroscopicity are rare, and this study offers critical insights into how emission control policies, specifically the shifting ratio of NO2 to SO2, may be altering the optical properties of urban aerosols over time. The approach of combining lidar with radiosonde and reanalysis data is sound, and the manuscript is generally well-structured and clear.

However, to ensure the robustness of the retrieved optical properties and the subsequent hygroscopic parameters, I have a few specific concerns regarding the retrieval assumptions and aerosol classification methods. Addressing the following points would strengthen the physical interpretation of the results.

1. The study utilizes the POLIPHON method to separate dust and non-dust (anthropogenic) components. However, the manuscript does not explicitly state the specific particle depolarization ratios for pure dust and non-dust used for this separation. Since the derived non-dust backscatter coefficient is highly sensitive to these threshold values, please explicitly list them in the methodology section.

2. The methodology assumes that dust and non-dust aerosols are externally mixed. In a humid environment like Wuhan, it is common for dust particles to become internally mixed (e.g., coated) with soluble pollutants during transport. This coating process typically lowers the particle depolarization ratio of the dust. Could the POLIPHON method be misclassifying these "coated dust" particles as "anthropogenic" due to their reduced depolarization? If misclassification occurs, the "non-dust" component would be contaminated by less hygroscopic dust cores. Could this artificially lower the reported hygroscopicity of the anthropogenic component? A brief discussion on this potential contamination and its impact on the final statistics would be very helpful.

3. The particle backscatter coefficient is retrieved using a fixed lidar ratio of 50 sr. This assumption requires further elaboration. As aerosols absorb water and grow, their microphysical properties (size distribution, refractive index, shape) change, which typically causes the lidar ratio to vary rather than remain constant. Please discuss or quantify the potential error introduced by holding this value fixed during humidification events. A simple sensitivity analysis showing how a varying lidar ratio affects the calculated hygroscopic growth parameter would improve the robustness of the conclusions.

I hope my comments can be helpful in refining this interesting study.

This work presents an excellent study about aerosol hygroscopic growth with lidar measurements. Its uniqueness is that it presents a long-term analysis of hygroscopic growth parameters with is very rare in the literature. In general, the paper is very well-structured and written. I agree with all comments of previous referee, and I just want to add one question: If the authors claim they can infer the role of aerosol hygroscopicity in aerosol optical depth (i.e. conclusion section in lines 340-341), why not estimating its role in direct radiative forcing? They have all the required measurements to do so. Apart from that I just have a few minor comments:

Section 2.2.- Polarization lidar and data processing: I acknowledge that the most relevant information about the system is already available in the literature. However, I miss here the critical information about the system (i.e. laser power, signal-to-noise ratio, FOV, detectors). I encourage you to improve this section

Line 148: If I understand well, you use ERA-5 to determine BL and FT. I am right? If so, can you give some description of your methodology?

Line 160: I wonder if two hours interval is too large for the matchups

Lines 168-169: Wind data are from ERA-5? Please specify

Line 203: I miss a reference for the claim that these values are typical of urban pollution.

Line 202-204: It is not clear to me the claim about the role of marine aerosols. You certainly are too far from coastal sites.

Line 249: I miss a reference after the statement ‘ our previous study’

Line 277-278: Again, to me this is confusing. You are too far from coastal area.