A mosaic of aerosol sources in the central Mediterranean: insights from dry deposition and single-particle analyses

Morán, Marcos; Schneiders, Kilian; Eknayan, Melanie; De Tomasi, Ferdinando; Ielpo, Pierina; Scerri, Mark; Nolle, Michael; Kandler, Konrad

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2026-5232

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5232

Preprints

11 Sep 2026

| 11 Sep 2026

Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).

A mosaic of aerosol sources in the central Mediterranean: insights from dry deposition and single-particle analyses

Marcos Morán, Kilian Schneiders, Melanie Eknayan, Ferdinando De Tomasi, Pierina Ielpo, Mark Scerri, Michael Nolle, and Konrad Kandler

Abstract. Flux-based dry deposition observations are scarce in the central Mediterranean, leaving unresolved how transport shapes deposited composition. Dry deposition was sampled concurrently at Lecce, southern Italy, and San Lawrenz, Malta, from spring 2017 to winter 2018 within the XMed-Dry network, using flat-plate collectors with 48–72 h exposures. Up to 5000 particles per sample were classified by scanning electron microscopy with X-ray fluorescence, and source regions were derived from FLEXPART backward simulations weighted first by hourly PM₁₀ and then by class-resolved deposition rates. Mineral dust dominated the deposited mass in 95 % of samples at inland Lecce but 69 % at coastal San Lawrenz, where the sea-salt flux was an order of magnitude higher. Dust sources peaked over northern Algeria and Tunisia at Lecce but over Libya at San Lawrenz, and sea salt at Lecce reached the northeastern Atlantic, increasingly with size, while at San Lawrenz it remained within the western Mediterranean. Intensity instead separates the classes. The five strongest events carried about 20 % of the dust mass at both sites but 40 % of the sulfate mass. Within several intrusions, silicate-sulfate and silicate-sea-salt mixtures peaked after the dust maximum, indicating progressive processing as the event decayed, and these episodes carried higher iron proportions across all size fractions. Such processing reportedly raises iron solubility, increasing bioavailable iron delivered to surface waters. Mineral classes intercorrelate strongly except Ca-rich particles, whose mass at San Lawrenz held through boreal winter, when Saharan input reached its seasonal minimum, indicating a local carbonate source.

Received: 30 Aug 2026 – Discussion started: 11 Sep 2026

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.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 11212 KB)

Supplement (11409 KB)

Download & links

Preprint (11212 KB)
Metadata XML
Supplement (11409 KB)
BibTeX
EndNote

Marcos Morán, Kilian Schneiders, Melanie Eknayan, Ferdinando De Tomasi, Pierina Ielpo, Mark Scerri, Michael Nolle, and Konrad Kandler

Status: open (until 09 Nov 2026)

Post a comment Subscribe to comment alert

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-5232', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Oct 2026 reply
In this manuscript, the authors present a dry deposition dataset of about 1.5 years, which was collected at two sites in the central Mediterranean at the same time. The single-particle analysis is combined with backward trajectory modelling to identify the source regions of different particle classes. In my opinion, this dataset is valuable and rare, because flux-based and class-resolved dry deposition observations are very limited in this region. The SEM methodology is based on the established works of the group. Several parts of the data processing are carefully done, such as the blank correction, the exclusion of artifacts, the window correction, the plausibility check of Pb and the Voronoi-based bootstrap for uncertainty estimation. The topic fits the scope of ACP well. However, I think some central conclusions of the manuscript are not well supported by the presented analyses. Some of them are even in conflict with the authors’ own numbers or statements. The main concerns are listed as follows.

Major comments
The FLEXPART simulations used an inert tracer without gravitational settling as mentioned at line 230. But the deposited mass is dominated by particles larger than 10 µm. The supercoarse fractions of dust and sea salt are important in the size range of larger than 10 µm, which are important contents in this paper. The atmospheric lifetime of such large particles is usually only several hours. So it is hard to accept that the supercoarse sea salt at Lecce comes from the northeastern Atlantic, which is thousands of kilometers away. A simpler explanation should be considered: strong westerly or northwesterly winds produce long Atlantic footprints and, at the same time, produce more local or regional sea spray. The CWT method cannot separate the source location from the transport pathway.

In section 4.2, the aging signal and the implication for iron bioavailability are overstated. The phase-lag argument (Fig. 7) is based on only 5 windows at Lecce and 3 windows at SLS. Each window has 5 samples with coarse time resolution, and each class is normalized to its own maximum. In several windows, the described sequence such as “precede an upward trend in both the sulfate mix and sea-salt mix curves toward their own relative maxima” from Line 366 to 369 is not observed. No statistical test was applied, but the Discussion mentions a “statistically detectable aging signal” (Line 616).

In method section: some basic information is missing: (1) The number of samples at each site, the total number of analyzed particles. (2) The lower and upper particle size limits of the analysis. (3) How the 48-72 hours data were aggregated for the MA-CWT, correlation analysis and pollution roses. (4) The distance between the sampling head and ground level. (5) How hourly PM₁₀ in situ was measured.

Section 4.3.3. The argument for a local Ca-rich source is reasonable, and it may be one of the most interesting results of this work. But it can be much more convincing if the authors use the data they already have: (1) Construct pollution roses for Ca-rich particles only, because the quarries are located to the SW, S and SE of the sampler. If the quarries are the main source, a hot spot is expected in these directions, especially at low wind speeds. However, the Saharan dust also mainly comes from the south, so a hot spot in the southern sector alone cannot distinguish these two sources. Therefore, it is better to compare the Ca-rich pollution roses with those of the silicate classes, or to use only the winter samples, when Saharan transport is weaker. Besides, since each sample integrates 48-72 h, the directional signal may be smoothed, and this limitation should be considered when interpreting the results. (2) Morphological screening to distinguish coccolithophore from angular quarry fragments. (3) The Ca-rich flux at SLS is the same in summer and winter (3.1 × 10³ mg m^-2, Lines 532–534). This should be double-checked.

Minor comments
Line 4 and Section 2.2.1: The technique used here is confusing. If it is XRF, the minimum particle size can be detected should be around 10 microns, but in this paper, there are results smaller than 1 micron. I assume the technique is SEM with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX/EDS), which detects the X-ray emission excited by the electron beam. It is not “X-ray fluorescence”. The manuscript itself uses “EDS” in Section 2.2.3. Please correct it in the whole manuscript.

Line 9: The sentence “Intensity instead separates the classes” is not clear. Please rephrase it.

Lines 85–89: The representativeness of the deposition rates measured by the flat-plate sampler for natural surfaces, especially the sea surface, should be discussed. This is important because biogeochemical implications are discussed later. The collection efficiency as a function of particle size and its dependence on wind speed are also relevant for the size-resolved fluxes and the pollution roses. The results of Waza et al. (2019) can be briefly summarized here.

Lines 102–106: The particle mass is estimated from the perimeter-based volume-equivalent diameter with two fixed densities. Please explain how the particle thickness is treated or influence the results. In addition, 2 fixed density values are used to estimate the mass, please perform a sensitivity test for varied density.

Lines 350-352: It is said that the Ca-rich proportion is “relative to total mineral mass”, but Fig. 5 is based on number. Please clarify which metric (mass or number) gives the values of 3.6%, 39%, 18%, 41%.

Lines 412-444 and Fig. 11: The cumulative totals (mg m^-2) are compared between the two sites, but the sampled durations (392 vs. 425 days) and the seasonal coverage are different. When comparing the two sites, the mean deposition rates (mg m^-2 d^-1) for the overlapping periods should be given. Please also explain why the duration of sea salt at Lecce (388.1 days) is different from that of dust and sulfate (392.1 days). Besides, the terms “deposition flux (mg m^-2)” and “deposition rate (mg m^-2 d^-1)” are not usual, because flux usually means per unit time. Please define them clearly at the beginning, or use “cumulative deposition” for mg m^-2.

It would be better to show some SEM images of particles in different classes in supplementary information.

Please tone down the conclusions based on Pearson correlation. A high correlation between the deposition rates of different classes may simply reflect common driving factors such as wind speed, and does not prove a common origin. Similarly, a moderate correlation does not prove independent sources.

Reply
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5232-RC1

Marcos Morán, Kilian Schneiders, Melanie Eknayan, Ferdinando De Tomasi, Pierina Ielpo, Mark Scerri, Michael Nolle, and Konrad Kandler

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5232-supplement

Data sets

Single-particle composition, mixing state and dry deposition fluxes from scanning electron microscopy at Lecce (Italy) and San Lawrenz (Malta), 2017-2018, with PM10 and surface wind observations from nearby monitoring stations M. Morán et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22146888

Marcos Morán, Kilian Schneiders, Melanie Eknayan, Ferdinando De Tomasi, Pierina Ielpo, Mark Scerri, Michael Nolle, and Konrad Kandler

Viewed

Total article views: 564 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
360	142	62	564	79	65	61

HTML: 360
PDF: 142
XML: 62
Total: 564
Supplement: 79
BibTeX: 65
EndNote: 61

Views and downloads (calculated since 11 Sep 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Sep 2026	274	110	30	414
Oct 2026	86	32	32	150

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 11 Sep 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Sep 2026	274	110	30	414
Oct 2026	86	32	32	150

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 564 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 564 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 22 Oct 2026

Short summary

Dust, sea spray and pollution particles settle out of the air, but few measurements exist for the central Mediterranean. Over two years we collected what settled at two sites, in southern Italy and on Malta, and examined the particles one by one under an electron microscope. Although the sites lie only about 600 kilometres apart, what settled differed strongly between them, changing with the season and with the type of particle, showing that a single site cannot represent the whole region.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0