the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Persistent and non-negligible aerodynamic entrainment during dust emission: new evidence from field observations and wind tunnel experiments
Abstract. Dust emission is a key process in wind erosion that influences climate and air quality. Consequently, the physical mechanisms of dust emission have attracted widespread attention. However, whether aerodynamic entrainment can persist during natural dust emission events remains debated, and this mechanism is often neglected or treated as secondary in dust emission parameterizations. To address this dispute, we combine field observations and wind tunnel experiments to investigate the persistence and contribution of aerodynamic entrainment. Field observations show that, in the observed plots where saltation rarely occurred, aerodynamic dust entrainment persisted throughout the emission process, whereas in most of the observed plots, the threshold friction velocity for dust entrainment (TFVa) was generally lower than that for saltation initiation. Even where the TFVa exceeded that for saltation, dust emission persisted beyond the cessation of saltation and its emission rate was enhanced by saltation disturbance. Wind tunnel experiments further demonstrated that aerodynamic entrainment persisted and contributed substantially to total dust emissions, accounting for 16–62 %. Moreover, the enhancement of dust emission by saltation resulted primarily from surface renewal and aggregate breakdown, which continuously replenished erodible fine particles. Furthermore, existing dust emission models based solely on aerodynamic entrainment or saltation bombardment fail to reproduce observed dust emission magnitude and temporal dynamics. Together, these findings indicate that aerodynamic entrainment is persistent and non-negligible, while saltation contributes not only through dust production but also by modifying surface erodibility. We therefore propose an “entrainment–saltation–renewal–entrainment” framework and suggest future models should consider coupled multi-mechanism processes.
- Preprint
(2730 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(756 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3563', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Aug 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-3563/egusphere-2026-3563-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2026-3563-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3563', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Oct 2026
Title: Persistent and non-negligible aerodynamic entrainment during dust emission: new evidence from field observations and wind tunnel experiments
MS No.: egusphere-2026-3563
This study combines valuable field observations with controlled wind-tunnel experiments and has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to our understanding of dust-emission mechanisms. The topic is also well within the scope of ACP. However, several central quantitative and mechanistic conclusions currently rely on assumptions that are not sufficiently demonstrated, particularly the attribution of PM10 emission without detected saltation to aerodynamic entrainment and the estimated 16–62% aerodynamic contribution. I therefore consider the manuscript potentially suitable for publication in ACP, but major revision is needed before these central conclusions are adequately supported.
Major comments
- The authors attribute PM10 emission without a simultaneous Sensit signal directly to aerodynamic entrainment, but this attribution is not unique. The PM10 gradient between 1 and 2 m may still be influenced by upwind dust transport and may not entirely represent local surface emission. In addition, Sensit sampling efficiency decreases strongly for small, low momentum particles, particularly around and below ~100 μm at smaller wind speeds (Van Pelt et al., 2009). Therefore, “no detected saltation” is not necessarily equivalent to the physical absence of saltation. Please clarify the detection limits and particle response characteristics of the Sensit sensors and assess how undetected saltation and advected dust may affect this key mechanistic attribution.
- The wind tunnel experiments are central to the manuscript, but several important details are not provided, including the duration of each run, the amount and feeding rate of external saltation sand, whether equal mass or equal particle number was supplied among size classes, and whether the soil bed was renewed between replicate runs. These details are particularly important for interpreting dust depletion, surface renewal, and particle size effects.
- The contribution estimate relies on SDS-A-8-N/A as an aerodynamic entrainment baseline. However, “A” means absence of externally supplied saltation sand, not absence of saltation. Figure 8a shows a cumulative saltation mass of 0.05 kg/m even for SDS-A-8-N/A. Therefore, assigning all PM10 emitted in this treatment to aerodynamic entrainment may overestimate its contribution. In addition, the 10 and 12 m/s lower bound estimates still use the 8 m/s baseline of 5.35 mg/m2. Please justify these assumptions and quantify their influence on the reported 16–62% contribution.
- Lines 365–370 assume that similar cumulative saltation flux Q should produce similar saltation generated dust, and the additional PM10 is therefore attributed to aerodynamic entrainment. However, similar Q does not necessarily mean similar bombardment intensity. Particle impact velocity, frequency, and energy may differ between the 10 and 12 m/s experiments, affecting dust production. Since impact frequency and impact energy were measured with the Sensit sensors, these data should be used to test this assumption before attributing the additional PM10 to aerodynamic entrainment.
- Wind speed, PM10, and saltation were recorded at 15 s intervals (line 74), whereas u* was obtained from hourly logarithmic wind profile fitting (line 98). Please clarify how hourly u* values were matched to the 15s dust and saltation observations. In addition, for plots with vegetation or other roughness elements, please clarify whether the surface friction velocity acting on the erodible soil us* should be considered rather than the total u*. Both issues may affect the interpretation of TFVa and TFVs.
- Each wind tunnel experiment was repeated three times, but Figures 7 and 8 report only mean cumulative values without error bars. Several central conclusions rely on quantitative differences among treatments and the estimated aerodynamic contribution. Please provide SD or confidence intervals to show the uncertainty among replicates.
- Lines 214-243: The absence of a significant relationship between TFVa and the PM10 fraction of 0–5 cm bulk soil does not demonstrate that dust supply limitation is unimportant. The 0–5 cm PM10 fraction may not represent the readily erodible fine material at the immediate surface, and supply limitation would more directly affect emission magnitude, cumulative emission, persistence, or decay than the threshold itself. The conclusion regarding “limited dust supply” should therefore be moderated.
Minor comments
- Line 217: “Neither saltation nor PM10 emission was observed” should not be described as “no recorded data”. Please distinguish zero event observations from missing.
- Line 253 / Table S1: M08 is classified in Table S1 as showing only Scenarios II and IV, implying no detected saltation, whereas Section 3.2 includes M08 among plots where both saltation and PM10 emission occurred, and Table 3 reports Type B events for M08. Please check this inconsistency.
- Line 268: The manuscript states that M09 had the “highest number and frequency” of Type A emissions (373, 29.58%). However, Table 3 shows 557 Type A events for M14 and a frequency of 99.04% for S08. Please correct this statement.
- Line 345: Figure 7 reports cumulative PM10 emission in mg m-2, whereas the text gives 6.15, 3.14, 21.24, and 5.35 mg g-1. Please check the units.
- Line 436: The wind tunnel experiment used the 300–450 μm size class, whereas the Discussion refers to 300–400 μm. Please correct this inconsistency.
- Table 1: “Lon (N°)” and “Lat (E°)” appear to be reversed. These should presumably be Lon (°E) and Lat (°N).
- Figure 3: It would be helpful to provide the corresponding u* range for each observation period to facilitate interpretation of the dust and saltation time series.
- Figure 4: The caption refers to “PCFDS and PCFMS”, whereas the manuscript defines PCMDS and PCFDS. Please check the abbreviation.
- The manuscript uses many abbreviations and experiment codes. Key terms such as TFVa, TFVs, PCMDS, PCFDS, Type A/B, and codes such as SDS-x-10-z should be defined directly in the relevant figure and table captions.
Van Pelt, R. S., Peters, P., and Visser, S. (2009). Laboratory wind tunnel testing of three commonly used saltation impact sensors. Aeolian Research, 1, 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeolia.2009.05.001
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3563-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 243 | 118 | 42 | 403 | 59 | 40 | 34 |
- HTML: 243
- PDF: 118
- XML: 42
- Total: 403
- Supplement: 59
- BibTeX: 40
- EndNote: 34
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1