the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Dust Transport and Local Anthropogenic Emissions Differently Shape Atmospheric Ice-Nucleating Particles: Insights from an Industrial Urban Atmosphere
Abstract. Atmospheric ice-nucleating particles (INPs) are vital for cloud formation, yet the importance of INPs from anthropogenic sources remains poorly understood. We conducted a month-long winter field campaign in Taiyuan, a heavily industrialized city, to quantify INP concentrations (NINP) and ice nucleation active site density (ns) of immersion mode INPs, alongside particle size distributions and chemical compositions. Our results indicate that NINP ranged from 0.0532 to 13.4 L−1 at −15 °C, corresponding to ns values of 105–107 m−2. During a dust event, both NINP (7.47 L−1 ; 95 % CI: 6.64–8.41 L−1) and ns (1.77 × 107 m−2 ; 95 % CI: 1.58–1.99 × 107 m−2) increased nearly one order of magnitude compared with periods without natural dust influence (1.75 L−1 and 3.89 × 106 m−2, respectively), highlighting the dominance of long-range transported desert dust. In contrast, during pollution periods, NINP showed only weak correlations with urban aerosol components like SO42−, NO3−, and OC (|r| < 0.3). Positive matrix factorization (PMF) identified five PM2.5 sources: coal combustion and traffic emissions, industry, (anthropogenic) dust, secondary aerosols and fireworks. Although these dominated the PM2.5 mass, none contributed significantly to INPs. This implies that even in heavily industrialized environments, the direct impact of anthropogenic emissions on INP loading remains limited. In summary, long-range mineral dust transport is the decisive driver of INP enhancements, while traditional anthropogenic fine aerosols contribute minimally. Observed NINP variability is likely governed by the interplay of episodic coarse-mode inputs and atmospheric processing rather than a single dominant source.
- Preprint
(1057 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1173 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 27 Mar 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-308', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Mar 2026
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-308/egusphere-2026-308-RC1-supplement.pdfReplyCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2026-308-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-308', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Mar 2026
reply
Review of “Dust Transport and Local Anthropogenic Emissions Differently Shape Atmospheric Ice-Nucleating Particles: Insights from an Industrial Urban Atmosphere” by Yang et al.
This study assessed the ice nucleating particle (INP) concentrations and efficiencies in an urban site in China. The authors were able to identify a clear mineral dust event as well as other high pollution events during their sampling period. Additionally, most of the sampling days were assigned as a “non-dust period” considering aerosol composition, particle size distributions, and air masses history. Although INPs are poorly constrained and studied in urban sites, the manuscript requires deep corrections. Also, I think this manuscript better fits into the “Measurement report” category.
Major comments:
- The authors made a distinction between a “dust event” and a “non-dust period”. Although the INP concentration and ns values are quite different between both periods, I am not fully convinced that the “non-dust period” is really a period without the influence of mineral dust particles. As shown in the back-trajectories, during the “non-dust period” the airmasses crossed northern China and southern Mongolia deserts, including the Gobi Desert. Also, the elemental analysis is not a good way to confirm the absence of mineral dust particles during the “non-dust period” as aluminum (Al) and silicon (Si) were not included. This a key point to be addressed as most of the drawn conclusions took this apparent distinction into account.
- The size range or cut-off size of the INP samples is not provided. This is very important as it is well-known that particle size is a key variable when assessing their ice-nucleating abilities. I only found the following information: “using a two-channel sampler without a cyclone”. Does it mean that the samples correspond to Total suspended particles (TSP)? Did I miss something?
- The PMF analysis was performed on PM2.5 particles; however, as mentioned above in point #2, based on the provided information, it seems that the INP samples correspond to TSP. If this is the case, the performed correlations are meaningless.
- I was surprised that meteorology was not used at all. The authors argue in several parts that the INPs were from local sources during the “non-dust period”. It would have been nice to check the wind speed and wind direction to corroborate this.
- Figures S4 and S5 are not mentioned/discussed in the main text. These figures contain important information that deserves to be deeply discussed.
- “All samples in Taiyuan activated before −15 ℃, with the most active samples initiating freezing near –5℃” and “It is also noteworthy that at relatively warm temperatures (approximately T > −12 °C), ns values of the ambient desert dust samples substantially exceed the parameterizations for pure K-feldspar”. If this is true, this corresponds to extremely efficient INPs; however, a deep discussion on the high efficiency of these particles is not provided. Is this because the samples were TSP? Is this coming from an instrumental bias? Were these samples enriched in biological particles?
- Why the PMF analysis was correlated with the INP concentration at -20 °C only. I suggest testing this comparison at -10 °C and -15 °C as this refers to highly efficient INPs.
Minor comments:
Lines 19-20: “compared with periods without natural dust influence”. I don’t think the authors can completely rule out the presence of mineral dust particles in the “non-dust period”.
Lines 26-27: “Observed NINP variability is likely governed by the interplay of episodic coarse-mode inputs and atmospheric processing rather than a single dominant source.” I am not sure the authors can really say this as a direct correlation between INP concentration and coarse particle concentration was not provided.
Line 178: What was the main motivation to run the back-trajectories at 859 m a.s.l.?
Lines 249-250: “while it is comparable to observations from Sisal, Mexico (Ladino et al., 2016), and New Delhi, India (Wagh et al., 2021) between −15℃ to −20℃”. I disagree with this statement. It would have been better to add to Figure 2 in-situ data for ambient samples under the influence of Asian or Saharan dust.
Lines 252-253: “This implies that the INPs observed in Taiyuan may also be influenced by anthropogenic dust particles.” No information is provided to support this.
Line 256: “they are broadly comparable with those reported in other relevant studies.” I disagree with this statement.
Lines 257-258: I don’t think that it is a good idea to add the data from Petters and Wright (2015). I suggest removing it from Figure 2.
Lines 261-262: “suggesting additional contributions from ice-active components or enhanced influence of transported desert dust during certain periods.” This is contradictory as this data corresponds to the “non-dust period”.
Lines 283-284: “particles larger than 0.5 μm in Taiyuan are likely dominated by local surface emissions from the surrounding Loess Plateau and fugitive dust from intensive industrial activities”. No evidence is provided.
Lines 298-300: “This comparison suggests that, under the East Asian desert dust transport regime, typical atmospheric aging does not significantly modify the surface ice-nucleating activity of mineral dust, and that mineralogical composition and particle-size characteristics are likely more important determinants.” I found this highly speculative.
Lines 359-360: “provide a framework for evaluating the contributions of local anthropogenic emissions versus naturally transported particles.” I don’t think this was clearly demonstrated.
Lines 366-367: “suggesting that typical aging processes do not substantially suppress the INP efficiency of East Asian mineral dust.” No evidence was provided for this.
Line 375: “The findings show that long-range desert dust transport is the decisive driver of INP enhancements in Taiyuan” This is a very strong conclusion from a single dust event.
Lines 378-379: “These observations help clarify the relative contributions of natural and anthropogenic sources to INPs”. I am not fully convinced about this.
Section 3.3. I suggest adding a Table similar to Table S1 but for the dust period
Figure 1. Panel a is not easy to follow. Perhaps using more contrasting colors could enhance its readability
Figure 3. add ns values for literature studies on urban particles and dust
Figure 4. This data adds little to the discussion.
Technical comments:
Line 15: Replace “campaign in Taiyuan” by “campaign in Taiyuan (China)”
Line69: Replace “dust in cities” by “dust in urban environments”
Line 71: “urban and peri-urban regions (Chen et al., 2024)”. I suggest adding other references.
Line 35: “thermal activation behavior” What does it mean?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-308-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 168 | 57 | 14 | 239 | 22 | 20 | 26 |
- HTML: 168
- PDF: 57
- XML: 14
- Total: 239
- Supplement: 22
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 26
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1