Dear Dr. Raegyung Ha,

As you know the process of peer review and publication in Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS) is a two-stage process involving the scientific discussion forum Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences Discussions (NHESSD). The first stage, corresponding to the open discussion has ended. The reviewers have already sent their comments and you have posted your comments as a response to them (in this case no more short comments of the scientific community has been received). Thank you very much. From now on begins the second stage that follows the usual and non-public peer-reviewed process. I would like to remind you that the pass to the second stage is no guarantee whatsoever that the paper will be accepted for publication in NHESS. This will depend on the comments of the referees, and your ability to respond properly to the comments received.

You must send the new version of the manuscript incorporating the major changes and improvements proposed by the reviewers. In response to the comments of the reviewers I must insist that the new version should:

- Review your definitions in order to avoid misunderastings.
- To include a description of HYSPLIT and its advantages and disadvantages.
- To be consistent in the story. If you include, for example, the trajectories of air transport at diferent altitudes, you should refer them in your analysis and results.
- To have a coherence between the results and Dicsussion (see for instance rhe question of the increase of ADS).
- To compare your results with studies from other countries.
- Include a Conclusion section

Sincerely Yours
Maria Carmen Llasat

Dear Dr. Raegyung Ha,

Two new reviews have sent their comments to your paper “Identification of Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Asian Dust Storms”. One of them has accepted your paper with minor comments but the other one has been very critic with it. Attending also the comments that you have received in the open phase, I will give you a last opportunity, but you should include all the amendments proposed by the three most critic referees.
With your revised manuscript, be sure to provide the author's reply which includes (i) a separate list with your responses to the comments of the referees (this can be similar or the same as the replies you gave online already, but you might find that some of your answers have now changed in preparing the revised manuscript taking into account my own comments); (ii) as part of your author reply (same document please) please provide a detailed (preferably using track changes) list of all the changes made to the text. By providing a detailed author's reply (where you go through each comment of the reviewers and tell the reviewers and myself how you replied) AND a track change document of what has changed, it will make the next step much faster.

I look forward to receiving the revised version of your work at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Prof. Maria Carmen Llasat

Dear Dr. Raegyung Ha,

Thank you very much for the new version of your paper. It is a pleasure for me telling you that your paper has been accepted to be published as it is. Please, send to the editorial the final version with all the changes accepted, beacuse your last version includes explicitely the changes done.

Hoping to receive more contributions from you in the future, to be published in NHESS,
Sincerely,

Prof. Maria Carmen Llasat