the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Radiocarbon-based source apportionment of carbonaceous aerosols over the Athabasca Oil Sands Region in Alberta, Canada
Abstract. The Athabasca Oil Sands Region (AOSR) hosts one of the world's largest unconventional fossil fuel operations, producing a complex carbonaceous aerosol mixture: fossil emissions from oil sands operations, biogenic secondary organic aerosol (SOA) from surrounding boreal landscapes, and episodic wildfire emissions, with consequences for regional air quality and climate. Here, we present a first dual-isotope (14C/δ13C) source apportionment of total carbon (TC) and elemental carbon (EC) in PM2.5 collected at Fort McKay from May to October 2017. Sampling-day PM2.5 ranged 0.8–20.3 µg m-3 (mean 6.9 ± 4.7, n = 29), versus 0.2–38.1 µg m-3 in the continuous record, indicating that filter sampling did not capture the highest pollution episodes. TC and organic carbon (OC) correlated strongly (Spearman ρ = 0.89) and positively with temperature (ρ = 0.67), consistent with biogenic SOA. EC co-varied with NO2 (ρ = 0.77) and SO2 (ρ = 0.51), implicating diesel mining fleets and upgrader stacks. During smoke-free periods, fossil fuel combustion dominated TC (mean: 51 %, range: 26–77 %), with westerly air masses crossing active mining areas more 14C-depleted (F14C = 0.58 ± 0.22) than northerly masses (F14C = 0.63 ± 0.14). During wildfire-impacted periods, biomass burning was the dominant source (fbb mean: 45 %, range: 9–76 %). The AOSR exhibited substantially lower summertime F14C values than Arctic and boreal comparison sites during non-fire periods, reflecting persistent local fossil fuel influence. These results provide information that can contribute to an isotopic baseline for emission inventories, atmospheric models, and air quality management in the AOSR.
- Preprint
(2917 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3766 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 06 Oct 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3338', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Sep 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 119 | 45 | 15 | 179 | 43 | 17 | 13 |
- HTML: 119
- PDF: 45
- XML: 15
- Total: 179
- Supplement: 43
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This manuscript presents radiocarbon and stable carbon isotope measurements of PM2.5 in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region (AOSR) and applies isotope-based source apportionment to distinguish major carbon sources. The dataset is potentially valuable; however, several points require clarification or more robust support before the main conclusions can be fully substantiated. My specific comments are as follows.
1. The rationale for comparing the AOSR with Arctic sites should be clarified. Is this comparison intended only to provide regional isotopic context, or to imply a connection between AOSR emissions and Arctic aerosols? If the latter, transport evidence is needed. Differences in sampling years and size fractions should also be considered in interpreting the comparison.
2. The representativeness of the 29 weekly samples should be discussed more carefully. The sampling covers only May–October and missed the highest PM2.5 episodes; therefore, statements on “seasonal partitioning” or “year-round” persistence appear stronger than the dataset supports.
3. Carbonate effects were evaluated in only eight samples. Please report the results before and after acid fumigation and clarify whether these samples are representative of the full dataset. The later statement that carbonate was excluded by acid fumigation of “every filter aliquot” also appears inconsistent with the Methods.
4. Please provide the analytical precision and detection limits for the OC/EC measurements and use appropriate significant figures for the reported concentrations. The cases where TC exceeds PM₂.₅ also deserve a more quantitative explanation or mass-closure check.
5. The inference of biogenic SOA from high OC/EC ratios and positive OC–temperature correlations remains indirect. The OC/EC ratio alone cannot distinguish secondary formation from primary sources; additional evidence is needed or the interpretation should be moderated.
6. For the EC 14C measurements, please report the EC recovery or loss or charring during Swiss_4S separation (see the original reference) and assess its potential influence on F14C-EC. Conclusions based on only two EC samples should also be cautious. In addition, Spearman ρ² should not be interpreted as R² or as the fraction of variance explained.
7. The δ13C endmember selection requires stronger justification, particularly for fossil sources in the AOSR. The interpretation of the highly enriched δ13C values as SOA formed by OH oxidation also needs further support; simply applying a +5–9‰ shift to the precursor does not adequately describe kinetic isotope fractionation.
8. Biomass-burning and biogenic endmembers overlap strongly, resulting in large uncertainties in their separation. Additional source-specific evidence, such as levoglucosan and related biomass-burning tracers, would help better constrain the quantitative biomass-burning contribution.