the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Dust Record from Allan Hills Blue Ice: Towards Extending the Archive to 4000 ka
Abstract. Previous analyses of dust concentration and size distribution in ice cores are limited to the past 800,000 years; however, the ALHIC1901 ice core drilled at the Allan Hills Blue Ice Area (BIA) in East Antarctica provides a unique opportunity to examine older discontinuous records of ice ranging in age from 4000–500 ka. Here we present a discrete record of insoluble particles within ALHIC1901 from the bottom 25 m of the core. We investigated the particle mass concentration, size distribution, and mineralogy within the core to assess the preservation of dust records in BIAs with complex flow histories. We find that the insoluble particle concentrations are likely altered by entrainment of basal sediment for depths 5 m above bedrock. For shallower depths less affected by subglacial input, the record lacks expected peaks in dust concentration during glacial periods, which have been termed “long snapshots,” implying that low net accumulation rates during glacial periods at the Allan Hills BIA results in the preferential loss or attenuation of glacial ice and a corresponding bias toward the preservation of interglacial ice. The dust concentrations may also be further smoothed due to ice thinning. A subset of particles from both the upper and lower ranges of depths analyzed shows evidence of mineral weathering and/or in situ production of secondary minerals, and insoluble particle concentration correlates well with non-atmospherically derived carbon dioxide concentrations. These results highlight the importance of identifying signs of basal ice-rock interactions and/or complicated accumulation and ablation histories as these affect our interpretation of paleoclimate records preserved in ice cores from BIAs.
- Preprint
(3085 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3289 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 06 Aug 2026)
- CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2434', Geunwoo Lee, 25 Jun 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | 1 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- HTML: 8
- PDF: 1
- XML: 0
- Total: 9
- Supplement: 0
- BibTeX: 0
- EndNote: 0
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dear Authors,
Thank you for sharing this very interesting preprint. I enjoyed reading your work and found the dust analysis in blue ice and its implications insightful. I would like to offer a few constructive comments and questions for your consideration.
Regarding the discussion on size distribution changes linked to basal contamination, it might be worth considering the englacial formation of large particles. For instance, visible solid inclusions found in the EDC basal clean ice are known to form englacially and are distinct from primary basal debris (Tison et al. 2015, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-1633-2015). In addition, dust aggregation might be able to affect the size distribution as discussed in the publication by Lambert et al. (2008, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06763). While chemical alteration (line 481) and dust aggregation (line 528) are discussed later in the manuscript, explicitly addressing the potential contribution of such englacial particle growth when linking size distribution shifts to basal contamination could further strengthen this section.
It seems worth considering how the multiple parameters should be interpreted collectively. The long-term snapshots, which bias toward interglacial periods, show clearly low dust mass concentrations in the shallower sections (above 155 m depth, Figure 3) without significant basal contamination. However, these same samples still preserve distinctive variations in both dust size distribution (Figure 4, line 290) and δ18O water isotope (Supplementary Figure 1). If these layers had been significantly altered by either glacial low-accumulation or physical mixing, one might physically expect these distinct variations in size distribution and water isotopes to have been smoothed out alongside the mass concentration. Could you perhaps elaborate further on the mechanism that allows the distinct isotope and size distribution signals to survive while maintaining a consistently low mass concentration?
The SEM images are a valuable addition to the manuscript. However, adding a clearly visible scale bar to each image would help readers more accurately assess particle size and morphology.
The authors may already be aware of this, but a very recent publication on microstructural analysis by Stoll et al. (2026, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2026JB033890) provides relevant insights into ice deformation and might be a helpful resource to enrich your discussion on these deeper or disturbed sections.
Thank you again for this stimulating paper, and I look forward to your response.
Best regards,
Geunwoo Lee