General comment:

This manuscript is well written, and most of the data presentation is clear and comprehensive. The amount of work is substantial given that multiple emissions inventories in different structures are integrated. And this work will be very useful for future studies. This manuscript can be even better if the specific comments listed below can be addressed.

Specific comments:

1, Fig. 1: how is the priority determined? Please provide more details on how the decision was made and why one inventory can be more believable than another?

2, Line 126: please provide more details on how the industrial point sources were incorporated into INTAC. How is mass conserved when doing such point sources incorporation?

3, Line 276: why the final product needs to be re-gridded to 0.1 degree even though that you were able to downscale to 1km?

4, Fig. 7f: this figure is useful to demonstrate the point you want to make, but it is kind of hard to understand given its current format, caption, and text description starting line 445. For example, I wasn't sure what the percentage numbers on the figure mean and I wasn't aware that the vertical line was for 50% on the x axis. Some more detailed description need to be added either to the figure itself, in the caption, or in the text discussing the figure.

Technique corrections and more figures needed:

1. Line 100: the singular of species is still species.

2. Line 162: RPD to PRD

3. Line 169: this is the first occurrence of "AIS" while it is not spelled out until line 205. Please make sure every acronym is spelled out at its first occurrence.

4. Line 383: when discussing provinces, I think it is useful to provide a province boundary map in the S.I. for readers not familiar with Chinese geography.

5. Line 392/466: what is HEIC? I guess it is the previous name of INTAC?

6. Line 407: same as comment 3, BTH can be introduced on line 377, where it shows up for the first time. 

7. Line 469: Could you please provide a map that has the locations of the 74 major cities in the SI?

8. Table 4, Fig. 8: providing the overall statistics is concise but some readers might want to see the raw data points in scatter plots. These can provide information such as the number of data points, the scatter distributions, etc. Some times, the overall bias can be driven by a few outliers. And the number of data points matters for the statistics you are presenting here. These can be put in the SI.

In this paper, Wu et al. combined several existing high-resolution emission inventories to develop a highly accurate dataset for China. This integrated approach, instead of the traditional bottom-up method relying on fundamental emission rates and factors, facilitates easier construction of large-scale and high-spatiotemporal-resolution emission inventory. The resulting integrated inventory highlights an increased proportion of point source emissions, along with enhanced accuracy in emission magnitudes and spatiotemporal patterns. The figures in the paper offer clear evidence of how the new inventory has improved the model performance. Compared to the widely-used China’s emission inventory MEIC, which is applicable at resolutions lower than 0.25 degrees, this new 0.1° dataset is proved to be a highly valuable asset for researchers in the field of emission inventory development and air quality modeling. The paper is well-written, logically structured, and straightforward. I would recommend publication after a minor revision. 

1.    Why is the integrated emission inventory only constructed for the year 2017? Would it be extended to have a time series or more recent years in the future? 

2.    Why not integrate CO2 in this study? While it’s not classified as an air pollutant, it’s a crucial species to consider.

3.    In the section 2.2.1, could you provide more details about the 88 standard sectors? I think a supplementary table would be helpful. I’m also a bit confused about the sectors in the legends of Figure 2. There are sectors labeled “passenger vehicle” or “truck”, but also one called “storage and transportation”. Could you clarify the relationships between those vehicles and transportation? 

4.    In Figure 2, the legends are so close to the pies. It would be better if this is modified.

5.    The conclusion is a little long and should be shorten.