Erhardt and others present a multi-species dataset of aerosol records measured from the EastGRIP ice core (top 479 meters). The record being discussed covers the past 3,800 years and has a temporal resolution on sub-annual scale. Overall, the authors did a good job in describing the samples, the analytical methods, and the product dataset. I only have a few number questions that revolve around the clarity of the manuscript and a handful of technical comments/suggestions. Once they are addressed, I will be happy to recommend the acceptance of this manuscript.

Line 6: here you acknowledge that the 1-mm-resolution dataset is an oversampling of the true record and the actual resolution is probably 1-cm. It would be better if you could move this sentence to line 3, right after “as well as decadal averages of these profiles.” Otherwise, people might start calculating the temporal resolution themselves and apparently overestimate the temporal resolution by an order of magnitude.

Line 10: there should be a blank in front of “GICC21”.

Line 23: ‘gold standard’ is a pretty strong statement. Can you add some citations to this sentence to back it up?

Line 44-45: it would be nice to note that the drilling is still ongoing as of writing (btw I enjoy reading the field diary!).

Line 51: can you add a very quick description how Gerber et al (2021) derived those numbers (111 km further upstream and 160 m higher)?

Line 58 (as well as line 97 below): the description here seems to suggest that the introduction of the ICP-TOFMS occurred between 2018 and 2019. Yet, looking at the data it appears that the ICP-TOFMS has been there all along; it’s just the absorption method for Na+ was discontinued in 2019 and the data produced in this method were not included in the PANGEA dataset. Is this the case? If so, you might want to re-word some sections or, if space permits, have a separate table documenting what methods measured what properties in what year (or in what depth range), and whether those data are included in your dataset.

Line 83: the ‘5 − −2.5 cm’ expression seems strange and not very clear. Please consider rephrasing.

Line 97 and onward: I recommend you discuss ICP-TOFMS exclusively in section 4.2.

Line 140: here you mentioned the presence of large gaps in the Ca2+ data but didn’t explain why (except briefing doing so in the caption of Figure 3 and explaining the LOD issue in line 179). It would be better if you could succinctly describe the analytical issues that led to those gaps here so readers will better understand the possible limitations of the dataset.

Line 288: could you please elaborate how the potentially contaminated ice is removed, like by extensive trimming perhaps?

Line 292: this section (5.5) doesn’t seem to affect data quality directly but concerns the interpretation of the data, which is not what this manuscript aims to do. Maybe this section can be moved towards the beginning of the manuscript (in section 2 for example).