the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Behavior of aerosol particles during dust- and pollen-affected time periods in southern Finland
Abstract. Natural dust and pollen episodes can alter aerosol particles, meaning tiny particles suspended in air, but their effects are not always easy to distinguish from optical measurements alone. We studied dust- and pollen-affected time periods at the Station for Measuring Ecosystem–Atmosphere Relations II (SMEAR II), a boreal forest field station in Hyytiälä, southern Finland. We combined in situ measurements of aerosol light scattering and absorption, size-resolved particulate matter mass, and aerosol particle size distributions. The merged optical and mass dataset contained 36 labelled event-affected sampling intervals: 15 dust-affected and 21 pollen-positive intervals. A separate event-level sensitivity analysis grouped the higher-resolution size-distribution data into 23 temporally separated episodes: 15 dust and 8 pollen episodes. Both dust- and pollen-affected periods increased aerosol scattering, showing that an optical enhancement can indicate that an atmospheric event occurred. However, bulk optical properties overlapped strongly and did not reliably identify whether the event was dust or pollen. Size-resolved mass and particle size-distribution measurements provided clearer physical information. Event–background differences increased with particle size and were strongest for particles larger than 10 micrometres, while accumulation-mode particle surface area showed the clearest temporally controlled dust–pollen tendency. These results show that, at this boreal forest site, dust and pollen can produce similar optical responses but different size-resolved particle responses. The study therefore helps clarify how long-term aerosol observations should be interpreted, and it cautions against assigning source type from optical enhancement alone. These findings support cautious use of monitoring records in boreal and other background environments.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(2673 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2814 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3400', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Aug 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sujai Banerji, 27 Oct 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-3400/egusphere-2026-3400-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sujai Banerji, 27 Oct 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3400', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Aug 2026
General comments:
The manuscript is well written, and the data analysis is methodologically sound, though some clarifications would be needed. However, I am not convinced that the measurement instruments used in this study really capture pollen concentrations. Could the validation of the result be done in collaboration with the Pollen forecasting unit at the University of Turku?
The results lean heavily to massive Supplement, which makes it laborious to read. Could the readability to be increased with reorganizing figures and tables? Perhaps moving the NPF related text, irrelevant to dust and pollen, to supplement and bringing the more relevant results to main text.
Detailed comments:
Lines 106-107: How these references relate to pollen? Aren’t they dealing with new particle formation?
Lines 156-158: Did I understand correctly that the bootstrap blocks do not follow the impactor sampling intervals? How this affect the results? How it is defined which block the measurement value is allocated and are these numbers representative? Why not using the sampling intervals as bocks in bootstrap?
Line 158: As. Cliff’s δ is not among the commonly known methods, you should briefly introduce it and justify its use. In addition, is there some threshold value where δ is considered small or large?
Figure 5: It is hard to believe that pollen would increase the number concentration of Aitken mode particles, as indicated in panel a.
Section 3.4. is rather redundant if the focus in the manuscript is in dust and pollen.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3400-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sujai Banerji, 27 Oct 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-3400/egusphere-2026-3400-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sujai Banerji, 27 Oct 2026
-
AC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3400', Sujai Banerji, 27 Oct 2026
For your convenience, we provide the following version-pinned Binder link for reproducing all 11 figure images (8 in the main manuscript and 3 in the supplementary information). The workflow redraws Figs. 2–8 and S1–S3 from archived processed inputs and includes Figure 1 as supplied artwork. It uses saved bootstrap intervals and does not repeat raw-data processing. This version was successfully verified on 27 October 2026.
https://gesis.mybinder.org/v2/gh/sujaibanerji/PM-Mass-and-AOPs-at-SMEAR-II/96c0dea537ef43beff9663e712104d3689a0c7bd?urlpath=voila/render/One_click.ipynb
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3400-AC3
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 191 | 149 | 70 | 410 | 76 | 65 | 60 |
- HTML: 191
- PDF: 149
- XML: 70
- Total: 410
- Supplement: 76
- BibTeX: 65
- EndNote: 60
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Summary:
This paper presents an interesting case study analyzing aerosol properties during pollen and dust events. However, several concerns need to be addressed before publication: reliance on general aerosol loading/optical properties rather than signals specific to pollen and dust, and the lack of a mechanism-based analysis that offers clear insight into pollen versus dust events. Please see detailed comments below:
Major Comments
Minor Comments