Vostok_Antarctica
pi-HOL
Vostok-BH7 core. Ages: based on AICC2012 chronology. Age errors as reported in that chronology. EC based on Coulter Counter concentration, assuming insoluble particle density of 2.5 g/cm3. The error on EC is due to a combination of uncertainties due to the density of insoluble particles (required to go from volume concentration measurements from the Coulter Counter to mass concentrations), the Coulter Counter measurements themselves, and a lack of a correction for volcanic contributions to total insoluble particles. Grain size data from Albani et al. (2015).
Delmonte et al. (2005), Veres et al. (2013), Delmonte et al. (2013), Albani et al. (2015)

EDC_Antarctica
pi-HOL
Ages: based on AICC2012 chronology. Age errors as reported in that chronology. EC based on Coulter Counter concentration, assuming insoluble particle density of 2.5 g/cm3. The error on EC is due to a combination of uncertainties due to the density of insoluble particles (required to go from volume concentration measurements from the Coulter Counter to mass concentrations), the Coulter Counter measurements themselves, and a lack of a correction for volcanic contributions to total insoluble particles. Grain size data from Albani et al. (2015).
Delmonte et al. (2005), Veres et al. (2013), Delmonte et al. (2013), Albani et al. (2015)

Harberton_Argentina
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on 14C. The authors do not specify the fern-bog transition. It is thus assumed that the 0-11.7 ka BP section is ombrotrophic. The relative errors on the ages are those of the closest measured 14C age (non-calibrated). Used sum_REE (except Tb) and UCC_REE to calculate dust fluxes, based on PCA analysis. Based on other proxies, they ascribe one peak in dust flux to a volcanic eruption: that peak was replaced by background values before and after. Grain size based on close-by site (Karukinka, Chile).
Vanneste et al. (2015)

PS75/059-2_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Age model is based on benthic foraminifera oxygen isotope records and on silicious and calcareous microfossils, with tuning against the EDC ice-core record (based on AICC2012). Dust DMAR is based on 230Th-normalized 232Th fluxes (recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm 232Th in dust). Focusing factor > 1.3 (=2.65). While this site is poleward of 50S, the influence of ice-drafted debris on lithogenic flux is thought to be small as evidenced from tight correlation of dust DMAR and n-alkane DMAR during both interglacials and glacials (n-alkanes is a proxy for continent-derived fluxes). No grain size data, nor on close-by sites. Site is farther downwind from dust sources than 2000 km.
Lamy et al. (2014)

Karukinka_Chile
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on 14C. Errors on modeled ages were not tabulated so the relative errors of the closest measured age levels were used. The lower age used was that coinciding with the fen-ombrotrophic limit as described in the paper. Sum of REE (excluding Tb) and normalization against UCC (147.4 ug/g, Rudnick and Gao, 2003) were used to derive EC. An analysis based on isotopes was performed to gauge volcanic ash contribution of REE: events of volcanic ash deposition were within the fen section of the profile. PCA analysis was performed. Grain size was measured, but only median grain size shown in a figure (not tabulated). The <10-micron fraction was estimated as in the LG2, Canada entry (see observations there).
De Vleeschouwer et al. (2014), Vanneste et al. (2016)

Rio-Rubens_Chile
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on 14C ages ("post-bomb" model). Data here restricted to ombrotrophic section, and discarded the topmost 150 a BP as anthropogenic influence is identified. Dust flux was calculated based on the sum of REE. EC was fixed such that the dust flux was that estimated visually. PCA was performed. An analysis of volcanic inputs was not (only mentioned the possibility).
Gonzlez et al. (2019), F. Lambert (pers. comm., 2022)

Hooker's-Point_Malvinas-Islands
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on 14C. Not mentioned in the text what part is ombrotrophic. Density not measured. Used the average of peat sites with measured density. Grain size calculated from 0-2-micron fraction (100%) plus (100*8/61)% of 2-63-micron fraction. No PCA nor volcanic analysis was performed. EC was calculated as a mean of the normalized values of Ti, Zr, Sc and sum_REE (using Rudnick and Gao, 2003 for UCC).
Monteath et al. (2022)

SO136-038GC-6_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Age model based on 14C and oxygen isotope stratigraphy (Neil et al., 2004). Focusing factor =1. Dust flux based on 230Th-normalized 232Th flux, recalculated by considering 14 rather than 10 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size from close-by site (PS75/100-4, Pacific Ocean). While this site is poleward of 50S, the authors argue that ice-drafted debris input was only significant during the deglaciation. N = 4.
Neil et al. (2004), Durand et al. (2017)

Y9_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Age model based on 14C (Neil et al., 2004) and oxygen isotope stratigraphy (Durand et al., 2017). Focusing factor >1.3 (4.1). Dust flux based on 230Th-normalized 232Th flux, recalculated to assume 14 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size from close-by site (PS75/100-4, Pacific Ocean). N = 10.
Neil et al. (2004), Durand et al. (2017)

MD94-104_Indian-Ocean
pi-HOL
Core MD 94-104 was correlated graphically to core MD 88-769, which is located in the same area and has age constraints from AMS 14C ages (Labeyrie et al., 1996; Lemoine, 1998). Considered the topmost three samples. Focusing factor =8.8. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, assuming 14 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Labeyrie et al. (1996), Lemoine (1998), Dezileau et al. (2000)

MD88-769_Indian-Ocean
pi-HOL
Age constraints from AMS 14C ages (Labeyrie et al., 1996; Lemoine, 1998). Considered the topmost three samples. Focusing factor =2.6. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, assuming 14 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Labeyrie et al. (1996), Lemoine (1998), Dezileau et al. (2000)

MD88-770_Indian-Ocean
pi-HOL
Age constraints from AMS 14C ages (Labeyrie et al., 1996; Lemoine, 1998). Considered the three samples within 19.0-26.5 ka BP. Focusing factor =3.6. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Labeyrie et al. (1996), Lemoine (1998), Dezileau et al. (2000)

PS75/100-4_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Age model based on 11 14C ages between 0-33 ka BP (Ronge et al., 2016, revised later by Ronge et al., 2021). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Focusing factor not calculated (Costa et al., 2020). Wu, Roberts et al. (2021) calculated dust MAR based on the chronology of the sediment core. The value they obtain is closer to that of Y9, which was obtained by 230Th-normalized 232Th flux. It is not clear what calculation to favor. Here, dust flux is calculated based on the data by Ronge et al. (2021), that is, using Th isotopes.
Ronge et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020), Ronge et al. (2021), Wu, Roberts et al. (2021)

MD11-3357_Indian-Ocean
pi-HOL
The age models for both sediment cores are based on graphical alignment of reconstructed sea surface temperatures (SST) with the EPICA Dome C (EDC) ?D record (Jouzel et al., 2007). Focusing factor >1.3 (=10.35). Dust flux based on 230Th-normalized 232Th flux. Grain size assumed.
Jouzel et al. (2007), Thle et al. (2019), Costa et al. (2020)

PS2498-1_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: combination of 14C ages (<4.5 ka BP) and below that correlation of lithogenic flux to EDC. Assume 2cm-thick age samples. Bulk pelagic MAR was 230Th-normalized, focusing factors are high (4.93, Costa et al., 2020). EC calculated based on 232Th (originally considered 10 ppm of 232Th in UCC, recalculated to 14 ppm). Grain size assumed. 
Gersonde et al. (2003), Anderson et al. (2014), Albani et al. (2015), Costa et al. (2020)

Canterbury-Plains-II_New-Zealand
pi-HOL
Ages: 4-11-micron quartz OSL. Density as assumed. Neither TOC nor carbonates reported. Grain size assumed.
Avram et al. (2022)

Barrhill_New-Zealand
pi-HOL
Ages: TL. Grain size from near-by site. Density assumed by Eden and Hammond (2003), no TOC/carbonates reported, it is described as loessic.
Berger et al. (1996), Eden and Hammond (2003)

MD94-102_Indian-Ocean
pi-HOL
Age constraints from AMS 14C ages (Labeyrie et al., 1996; Lemoine, 1998). Considered the four Holocene samples. Focusing factor =3.3. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, assuming 14 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Labeyrie et al. (1996), Lemoine (1998), Dezileau et al. (2000)

TN057-06PC4_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: correlation of delta-18O. Assume 2cm-thick samples. Bulk pelagic MAR was 230Th-normalized, and focusing factors not calculated. EC calculated based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 232Th in dust of 14 rather than 10 ppm. EC and 230Th fluxes not tabulated or plotted, so DMAR was taken from a figure and measured carefully using Illustrator. Grain size from full distribution.
Hodell et al. (2001), Anderson et al. (2014), Costa et al. (2020), van der Does et al. (2021)

TN057-21-PC2_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: correlation of delta-18O. Assume 2cm-thick samples. Bulk pelagic MAR was 230Th-normalized, and focusing factors are high (=18.76). EC calculated based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10 ppm of 232Th in dust. EC and 230Th fluxes not tabulated or plotted, so DMAR was taken from a figure and measured carefully using Illustrator. Grain size from close-by site (TN057-06PC4, Atlantic Ocean).
Barker et al. (2009), Barker et al. (2010), Anderson et al. (2014), Costa et al. (2020)

ODP1088_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: an estimated age of 3 ka BP is reported, which is assumed to be the age of the bottom of the sample. Focusing factor not calculated (Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size from close-by site (TN057-06PC4, Atlantic Ocean).
Robinson et al. (2008), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

DSDP-593_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Age model based on 14C (Neil et al., 2004) and oxygen isotope stratigraphy (Durand et al., 2017). Focusing factor >1.3 (=3.5). Dust flux based on 230Th-normalized 232Th flux, recalculated to assume 14 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size from close-by site (E26.1, Tasman Sea). N = 4.
Neil et al. (2004), Durand et al. (2017)

E26-1_Tasman-Sea
pi-HOL
Ages: model based on calibrated AMS 14C ages. Relative uncertainty equal to that of the discrete, calibrated AMS 14C that is closest in age. Assume sample thickness (for ages) is 2 cm. Density and EC from Albani et al. (2015). EC is the ash-corrected terrigenous fraction, but not clear exactly what that implies (were CaCO3, organic C and biogenic opal eliminated?). It is assumed that those three were eliminated; thus EC is assumed 0.1. This site is only 63 km from site DSDP 593, both at very similar water depths (910 mbsl vs. DSDP 593: 1068 mbsl). Dust flux for site DSDP 593 was calculated based on 230Th normalization. For this site it was found that the focusing factor is 3.5 during the Holocene. Thus, it would be expected that a similar focusing factor existed for site E26.1. Given the uncertainty associated to calculating DMAR in sediment cores based on chronology (given the possibility of sediment focusing), an extra uncertainty component is added to this site with a relative uncertainty of 50%. For the FF correction, an FF of 3.5 is assumed. The mean value of the no-focusing and 3.5-focusing scenarios is calculated. The uncertainty is 0.6827 times half of the difference between these extreme possible values. Grain size from full distribution.
Hesse (1994), Fitzsimmons et al. (2013), Albani et al. (2015)

Amsterdam-Island_Indian-Ocean
pi-HOL
The authors state that the ombrotrophic section of the profile is from 0-315 cm depth. So this is the section used here. EC was calculated as sum_REE/UCC_REE for 14 REEs (UCC: 148.1 ug/g, Rudnick and Gao, 2003). Grain size not measured, and there are no close-by sites with measured grain size. It was assumed to be the average value of measured peat bog sites.
Li, Sonke et al. (2020)

Upper-Snowy-Core_Australia
pi-HOL
Ages: two 14C ages were used from McGowan et al. (2010). The actual ages are used, as the uncertainty on the age model is not reported. The reported uncertainty on these ages is assumed to be 1-sigma. Only the ombrotrophic section of the core is considered, and the anthropogenically influenced top of the core in discarded. Density is assumed equal to the mean density of peat sites with measured density globally. The mean dust flux as shown in Figure 10 of Marx et al. (2011) was measured carefully on Illustrator, for the period defined by the top and bottom ages. EC was fixed such as to obtain this value of dust flux. The uncertainty in EC is unknown, as there is no indication in the original studies of the uncertainty in the method employed to obtain the dust fraction. It was thus assumed to be 60%, the highest uncertainty for EC in peat considered in this study, plus an extra 10% (70% total) to account for the visual estimation employed to calculate dust flux. Grain size not measured, and there are no close-by sites with measured grain size. It was assumed to be the average value of measured peat bog sites.
McGowan et al. (2010), Marx et al. (2011)

Gorina_Argentina
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model from OSL ages. Density, TOC and carbonates reported. Density was calculated based on TOC and grain size measurements. Grain size from full curve.
Torre et al. (2019), Coppo et al. (2022)

Tortugas-I_Argentina
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL. Density from close-by site where it was calculated based on TOC and grain size measurements. Carbonates not reported for this part of the profile. TOC not reported. Grain size taken from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Kemp et al. (2004)

Lozada_Argentina
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model from OSL ages. Density, TOC and carbonates reported. Density was calculated based on TOC and grain size measurements. Grain size from full curve.
Torre et al. (2019), Coppo et al. (2022)

Mfabeni-MF4-12_South-Africa
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on AMS 14C ages (modeled ages and thickness was carefully measured in Illustrator). Uncertainty envelope in the age model is assumed to be 2-sigma. Density assumed equal to the mean of the peat sites with measured density (globally). Long-range dust flux was estimated visually (long-range component based on grain size modelling). EC was fixed to give dust flux value. No PCA analysis performed. No volcanic analysis performed. Dust flux based on total ash content (plus grain size end-member modelling). Grain size was measured, but not tabulated. The <10-micron fraction was estimated visually from the area below the GSD curve, which is why error is high.
Humphries et al. (2017)

Native-Companion-Lagoon_Australia
pi-HOL
This is a coastal lagoon system, isolated from river discharge. It is an ephimerous system (it dries up occasionally). Ages are based on 14C dates, modeled using a polynomial. The uncertainty on ages is a quadrature of the reported relative error on the calibrated ages and a 2% component associated to the non-explained variance of the polynomial fit). EC was calculated by ashing samples, which takes into account organic matter. Biogenic opal was minimal based on other studies of similar samples in the area. Authigenic carbonates were not considered. They used trace element geochemistry to isolate the long-distance dust component from the local sediment component. This method is well supported by the paper. As EC was not tabulated, EC was fixed to give long-range DMAR (F. Lambert, pers. comm.). Grain size not measured. Given the distance to potential dust sources (1000-2000 km), as done for marine sediments, a 0.75 fraction is assumed).
McGowan et al. (2008), Petherick et al. (2009), F. Lambert (pers. comm.)

Santa-Victoria_Argentina
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on AMS 14C ages (values not tabulated: measured carefully in Illustrator). The 0-400 a BP were not considered as it is interpreted to capture anthropogenic dust. It is not clearly stated what section of the core is ombrotrophic: the limit was defined as where there is a sharp increase in ash content and magnetic susceptibility (440 cm depth). Density measured but not reported: assumed it to be the global mean of peats in this data set (for sites with measured density). Dust fluxes in the paper are reported measured in terms of REE and ash content, while the discussion is based on ash content-derived dust flux, so here this flux is considered. As values are not tabulated, a mean value was estimated based on figures and the discussion in the text. Then, the EC factor was fixed so that dust flux was equal to that estimate. High values associated to a volcanic event are not considered. No PCA analysis was performed. Grain size estimated visually from the mean of the median along the profile.
Hooper et al. (2020)

Opuwo_Namibia
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL. Grain size from one single sample: full distribution curve (visual estimation). Density assumed. Carbonates reported, not TOC.
Brunotte et al. (2009)

Lynch's-Crater_Australia
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model. As ages and depths not tabulated, measured them carefully in illustrator. Only used the ombrotrophic section of the profile, and ignored the upper 15 cm as they show anomalusly high sum_REE (compared to rest of the ombrotrophic profile: may be antropogenic). Uncertainty in ages not reported: used relative error of measured ages. Density not reported: used the average value of all peats in this compilation (with measured density). EC was calculated based on sum_REE normalized to UCC (Rudnick and Gao, 2003). PCA was performed, while an analysis of possible direct volcanic ash fall was not. Grain size not measured, and there are no close-by sites with measured grain size. It was assumed to be the average value of measured peat bog sites.
Kylander et al. (2007), Muller et al. (2008)

SO-14-08-05_Indian-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: model based on calibrated AMS 14C ages. Relative uncertainty equal to that of the discrete, calibrated AMS 14C that is closest in age. Assume sample thickness (for ages) is 2 cm. Density and EC from Albani et al. (2015). EC is the ash-corrected terrigenous fraction, but not clear exactly what that implies (were CaCO3, organic C and biogenic opal eliminated?). It is assumed that those three were eliminated; thus EC is assumed 0.1. Grain size assumed (Albani et al., 2015). Given that 230Th normalization was not used, and the possibility of sediment focusing, DMAR's uncertainty is augmented with a 50% relative uncertainty component. With respect to the FF correction, given that there is no close-by site with a calculated FF, the average Holocene FF of Costa et al. (2020) is used. To account for the extra uncertainty of not having a calculated FF, an FF of double that of the Holocene FF of Costa et al. (2020) is used to calculate the uncertainty.
Hesse and McTainsh (2003), Fitzsimmons et al. (2013), Albani et al. (2015)

WIND-28K_Indian-Ocean
pi-HOL
The age model for the core is derived from correlation of the benthic (C. wuellerstorfi) ?18O record to the orbitally tuned reference curve (SPECMAP) of Martinson et al. (1987) which it closely matches, and six AMS radiocarbon ages (McCave et al., 2005). Focusing factor >1.3 (5.98, Thomas et al., 2007). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, assuming 14 ppm of 232Th in dust. Samples used for calculation are WIND 28K 3-4b, WIND 28K 15-16 and WIND 28K 32-33 (N = 3). Grain size assumed.
Martinson et al. (1987), McCave et al. (2005), Thomas et al. (2007)

V19-29_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: not clear what dating method was used. Focusing factor >1.3 (4.86, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, assuming 14 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed. N = 2.
Moore et al. (1980), Lao et al. (1992), Costa et al. (2020)

PLDS-7G_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: based on extrapolation of 14C measured from 14 ka BP and older (uncertainty in ages is assumed 4x that of 14-C). Assumed 2cm thick samples. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Focusing factor =1.25 (Costa et al., 2020). Grain size assumed.
Thiagarajan and McManus (2019), Costa et al. (2020)

RC24-12_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: correlation based on delta-18O, which is quite uncertain during the Holocene due to a lack of tie points. Assume depth interval of samples of 2 cm. Total sediment flux based on 230Th normalization. Focusing factor =3.16. EC calculated based on 232Th. As EC not tabulated, EC was fixed to give reported dust fluxes in Albani et al. (2015), which were recalculated assuming a mean 232Th in dust of 14 ppm rather than 10 ppm. Grain size assumed.
Verardo and McIntyre (1994), Ratmeyer et al. (1999), Bradtmiller et al. (2007), Albani et al. (2015), Costa et al. (2020)

ODP138-848B-1H_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: based on delta-18O correlation. Bulk pelagic MAR based on 230Th. Focusing factor <1.3 (approx. 1.2). EC based on 232Th, recalculated to assume 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
McGee et al. (2007), Albani et al. (2015)

TT013-MC27_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: combination of 14C ages and delta-18O correlation. Bulk pelagic MAR was calculated based on 230Th normalization. Focusing factor is >1.3 (2.92, Costa et al., 2020). EC based on 232Th, recalculated to assume 14 rather than 10 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Anderson et al. (2006), Albani et al. (2015), Costa et al. (2020)

SA6.5_Indonesia
pi-HOL
Ages: 14C. Here the ombrotrophic section is studied. Density estimated visually. EC was calculated based on Al, which is the element chosen to calculate dust fluxes in the paper. The mean concentration of Al was multiplied by 10/8 (total dust mass was assumed to be 8% Al), and so EC was calculated as Al (ug/g) x 100/8. The mean Al concentration was estimated visually. PCA analysis was not carried out, neither an analysis of volcanic contributions. The value obtained for DMAR is quite different to the published one. Grain size not measured, and there are no close-by sites with measured grain size. It was assumed to be the average value of measured peat bog sites.
Weiss et al. (2002)

TT013-MC19_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: combination of 14C ages and delta-18O correlation. Bulk pelagic MAR was calculated based on 230Th normalization. Focusing factor not calculated. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Albani et al. (2015), Costa et al. (2020)

TT013-PC18_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: delta-18O correlation. DMAR was measured from a figure using Illustrator. The 230Th normalization was performed, but focusing factors were not calculated. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Marcantonio et al. (1996), Murray et al. (2000), Anderson et al. (2006), Bradtmiller et al. (2006)

RC8-102_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: model based on AMS 14C dating of foraminifera. Used the 5.6 and 9.05 ka BP samples. Focusing factor >1.3 (=2.1). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Koutavas and Lynch-Stieglitz (2003), Singh et al. (2011), Kienast et al. (2016)

RC24-07_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: correlation based on delta-18O, which is quite uncertain during the Holocene due to a lack of tie points. Assume depth interval of samples of 2 cm. Focusing factor =2.7. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC calculated based on 232Th. As EC not tabulated, EC was fixed to give reported dust fluxes in Albani et al. (2015), recalculated by assuming mean 232Th in dust of 14 rather than 10 ppm. Grain size assumed.
Verardo and McIntyre (1994), Ratmeyer et al. (1999), Bradtmiller et al. (2007), Albani et al. (2015), Costa et al. (2020)

MD97-2138_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: age model based on six 14C ages and the ?18O record of planktonic foraminifer G. ruber. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. Focusing factor >1.3 (=3.6). EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Pichat et al. (2004)

V21-29_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Age model based on oxygen isotope records of planktonic foraminfera (G. sacculifer and G. ruber) and 10 planktonic radiocarbon dates (N. dutertrei: Koutavas and Lynch-Stieglitz, 2003). Ages: used two samples, at depths of 19 cm and 57 cm. Focusing factor >1.3 (=3.9). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Koutavas and Lynch-Stieglitz (2003), Singh et al. (2011)

9MC_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: model based on 14C dates for core top and bottom. Used all 17 samples from the core for calculations. Focusing factor >1.3 (2.15, Costa et al., 2020). EC based on 232Th, assuming 14 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Marcantonio et al. (2014), Costa et al. (2020)

V22-182_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: 14C. Assume 2cm-thick samples for ages. Focusing factor =1.92. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC calculated based on 232Th. As EC not tabulated, EC was fixed to give reported dust fluxes in Albani et al. (2015), recalculated based on assuming 14 rather than 10 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
CLIMAP (1976), Mix and Ruddiman (1985), Ratmeyer et al. (1999), Bradtmiller et al. (2007), Albani et al. (2015), Costa et al. (2020)

14MC_13BB_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Core chronologies were established with four radiocarbon dates on G. ruber: 0 cm and 8 cm depth in multicores, and two depths in the Big Bertha piston cores that bracketed the ?18O maximum inferred to represent Marine Isotope Stage 2, and with linear interpolation between dates. Ages: used all five Holocene samples. Focusing factor <1.3 (1.09, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Costa et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

V30-40_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: 14C. Assume 2cm-thick samples for ages (except top-most which is 5 cm). Focusing factors were not calculated. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC calculated based on 232Th. As EC not tabulated, EC was fixed to give reported dust fluxes in Albani et al. (2015), recalculated to assume 14 rather than 10 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
CLIMAP (1976), Mix and Ruddiman (1985), Ratmeyer et al. (1999), Bradtmiller et al. (2007), Albani et al. (2015), Costa et al. (2020)

16MC_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: model based on 14C dates for core top and bottom. Used all six samples from the core. Total sediment flux based on 230Th normalization. Focusing factor >1.3 (5.85, Costa et al., 2020). EC based on 232Th, assuming 14 ppm of 232Th in dust.  Grain size assumed.
Marcantonio et al. (2014), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

MV1014-02-17JC_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Preliminary age model based on ten radiocarbon dates on N. dutertrei between 0 and 500?cm depth in core, ?18O tie points at oxygen-isotope stage (MIS) boundaries, and the Los Chocoyos ash (84?kyr) at 853?cm core depth. Focusing factors not calculated. Dust flux based on 230Th-normalized 232Th flux, assuming dust has 11 ppm 232Th (based on the authors, recalculated to 14 ppm).  Grain size assumed.
Loveley et al. (2017), Costa et al. (2020)

MW91-9-GGC48_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: 14C + delta 18-O. Ages: used the topmost six samples for the calculation. Focusing factor >1.3 (1.47, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Bradtmiller et al. (2006), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

ME0005-24JC_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: late Holocene dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (=4.9). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed. N = 2. Exact time span uncertain.
Kienast et al. (2007), Kienast et al. (2016)

Y69-71_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: Kienast et al. (2016) mentions two samples used for the Holocene calculation: assume those two samples have ages 2.87 and 6.37 ka BP (Kienast et al., 2007). Focusing factor >1.3 (=2.5). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Kienast et al. (2007), Kienast et al. (2016)

TT013-PC72_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: 14C combined with delta-18O correlation. Bulk pelagic MAR based on 230Th. Sediment focusing not calculated. EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Anderson et al. (2006), Albani et al. (2015), Costa et al. (2020)

ODP138-849A-1H_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: based on delta-18O correlation. Bulk pelagic MAR based on 230Th. Focusing factor is 1.8. EC based on 232Th (recalculated from Albani et al., 2015 by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust). Grain size assumed.
McGee et al. (2007), Albani et al. (2015)

RNDB-74P_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: late Holocene dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor not calculated. 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed. N = 2. Exact time span uncertain.
Kienast et al. (2016)

MC1208-17PC_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: delta-18O correlation and 14C. Focusing factor not calculated (Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Jacobel et al. (2017), Costa et al. (2020)

TR163-22_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Age model based on high-resolution (~ 0.5 to 1 ka) planktonic ?18O records and 3 radiocarbon dates on N. dutertrei. Two samples. Focusing factor >1.3 (=2.3). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Lea et al. (2006), Singh et al. (2011)

RC24-01_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: correlation based on delta-18O, which is quite uncertain during the Holocene due to a lack of tie points. Assume depth interval of samples of 2 cm (except topmost which is 5 cm). Focusing factors were not calculated. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC calculated based on 232Th. As EC not tabulated, EC was fixed to give reported dust fluxes in Albani et al. (2015), recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10 ppm 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Verardo and McIntyre (1994), Ratmeyer et al. (1999), Bradtmiller et al. (2007), Albani et al. (2015), Costa et al. (2020)

V28-203_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
There is contrasting information about this site's latitude. Costa et al. (2020) and a figure in Bradtmiller et al. (2006) say 0.95S, while a table in Bradtmiller et al. (2006) and info in Pangea mention 0.95N. The latter is used here. Ages: correlation based on delta-18O. Thickness of samples assumed 2 cm. Bulk pelagic MAR based on 230Th. Focusing factor <1.3 (1.13, Costa et al., 2020). EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Bradtmiller et al. (2006), Albani et al. (2015), Costa et al. (2020)

21MC-20BB_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Core chronologies were established with four radiocarbon dates on G. ruber: 0 cm and 8 cm depth in multicores, and two depths in the Big Bertha piston cores that bracketed the ?18O maximum inferred to represent Marine Isotope Stage 2, and with linear interpolation between dates. Ages: used all five Holocene samples. Focusing factor >1.3 (2.60, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Costa et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

ODP138-850A-1H_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: based on delta-18O correlation. Bulk pelagic MAR based on 230Th. Focusing factor <1.3 (approx. 1.3). EC based on 232Th, recalculated to 14 ppm of 232Th in dust (from 10.7 ppm). Grain size assumed.
McGee et al. (2007), Albani et al. (2015)

RC17-177_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Latitude: there are contradicting values between papers. The one from Winckler et al. (2008) is used. Used samples RC17-177-1 and 2 (Winckler et al., 2008) . Focusing factor <1.3 (0.73, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Winckler et al. (2008), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

KNR-73-4PC_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: linear model based on 14C. Assumed 2cm thick samples. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Focusing factor =3.11. Grain size assumed as in close-by site.
Thiagarajan and McManus (2019), Costa et al. (2020)

RC13-189_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: 14C. Assume depth interval of samples of 2 cm. Focusing factors were not calculated. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC calculated based on 232Th. As 230-Th normalized fluxes and EC not tabulated or shown in a figure, the mean dust flux was carefully measured from a figure in Illustrator, recalculated to assume 14 rather than 10 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed as other sites of Bradtmiller et al. (2007).
CLIMAP (1976), Mix and Ruddiman (1985), Bradtmiller et al. (2007), Costa et al. (2020)

TR163-19P_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: late Holocene dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (2.79, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed. N = 2.
Kienast et al. (2016)

26MC-25BB_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: based on delta-18O correlation, with linear interpolation between tie-points (no tie points between 0-11.7 ka BP). MAR calculation was based on 230Th fluxes, not chronology. Focusing factor =1.12. EC was estimated based on carbonate measurements. Opal was negligible. No data on organic content though. Grain size assumed.
Costa et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

EN066-29GGC_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Core chronologies were established with four radiocarbon dates on G. ruber: 0 cm and 8 cm depth in multicores, and two depths in the Big Bertha piston cores that bracketed the ?18O maximum inferred to represent Marine Isotope Stage 2, and with linear interpolation between dates. Used the five Holocene samples of Costa et al. (2016) for the calculation. Focusing factor >1.3 (5.34, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Francois et al. (1990), Ratmeyer et al. (1999), Albani et al. (2015)

P7_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: 14C. Calculated based on two samples from Yang et al. (1995). Focusing factor not calculated (Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Yang et al. (1995), Costa et al. (2020)

ODP138-851E-1H_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: based on delta-18O correlation. Bulk pelagic MAR based on 230Th. Focusing factor <1.3 (approx. 1.2). EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
McGee et al. (2007), Albani et al. (2015)

RC13-140_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: 14C. Used the topmost five samples from the core. Focusing factor >1.3 (3.02, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Bradtmiller et al. (2006), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

29MC-28BB_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Core chronologies were established with four radiocarbon dates on G. ruber: 0 cm and 8 cm depth in multicores, and two depths in the Big Bertha piston cores that bracketed the ?18O maximum inferred to represent Marine Isotope Stage 2, and with linear interpolation between dates. Used the five Holocene samples of Costa et al. (2016) for the calculation. Focusing factor >1.3 (7.09, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Costa et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

Y69-106P_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: used the two Holocene samples. Focusing factor =1.1. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Pisias and Mix (1997), Singh et al. (2011)

GeoB1523_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: late Holocene dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor <1.3 (1.20, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed. N = 2.
Vidal et al. (1999), Lippold et al. (2011), Lippold et al. (2016), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

EN066-21GGC_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: based on delta-18O correlation, with linear interpolation between tie-points (no tie points between 0-11.7 ka BP). MAR calculation was based on 230Th fluxes, not chronology. Focusing factor 1.15. EC was estimated based on carbonate measurements. Opal was negligible. No data on organic content though. Grain size assumed.
Francois et al. (1990), Ratmeyer et al. (1999), Albani et al. (2015)

GeoB1515_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: late Holocene dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor <1.3 (0.97, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed. N = 1.
Rhlemann et al. (1996), Lippold et al. (2011), Lippold et al. (2016), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

KNR110-82GGC_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Coordinates based on Kienast et al. (2016). Ages: combination of d18O correlation (no tie points in the Holocene) and 14C ages (14C age close to bottom age). MAR calculation was based on 230Th fluxes, not chronology. Focusing factor 1.02. EC was estimated based on carbonate measurements. Opal was negligible. No data on organic content though. Grain size assumed.
Francois et al. (1990), Albani et al. (2015), Kienast et al. (2016)

KNR110-58GGC_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Coordinates are approximate (not reported, checked on Google Maps based on maps in paper. Ages: combination of d18O correlation (no tie points in the Holocene) and 14C ages (14C age close to bottom age). MAR calculation was based on 230Th fluxes, not chronology. Focusing factor 0.81. EC was estimated based on carbonate measurements. Opal was negligible. No data on organic content though. Grain size assumed.
Francois et al. (1990), Albani et al. (2015)

MC1208-31BB_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: delta-18O correlation and 14C. Focusing factor not calculated (Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Jacobel et al. (2017), Costa et al. (2020)

KNR110-55GGC_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Coordinates are approximate (not reported, checked on Google Maps based on maps in paper. Ages: combination of d18O correlation (no tie points in the Holocene) and 14C ages (14C age close to bottom age). MAR calculation was based on 230Th fluxes, not chronology. Focusing factor 0.92. EC was estimated based on carbonate measurements. Opal was negligible. No data on organic content though. Grain size assumed.
Francois et al. (1990), Albani et al. (2015)

EN066-38GGC_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: based on delta-18O correlation, with linear interpolation between tie-points (no tie points between 0-11.7 ka BP). MAR calculation was based on 230Th fluxes, not chronology. Focusing factor 0.96. EC was estimated based on carbonate measurements. Opal was negligible. No data on organic content though. Grain size assumed.
Francois et al. (1990), Ratmeyer et al. (1999), Albani et al. (2015)

33MC-32BB_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Core chronologies were established with four radiocarbon dates on G. ruber: 0 cm and 8 cm depth in multicores, and two depths in the Big Bertha piston cores that bracketed the ?18O maximum inferred to represent Marine Isotope Stage 2, and with linear interpolation between dates. Used the five Holocene samples of Costa et al. (2016) for the calculation. Focusing factor not calculated (Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Costa et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

ODP138-852A-1H_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: based on delta-18O correlation. Bulk pelagic MAR based on 230Th. Focusing factor <1.3 (approx. 1.3). EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
McGee et al. (2007), Albani et al. (2015)

VM20-234_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Age model: based on 14C. Focusing factor >1.3 (=2.422). Dust flux based on 230Th-normalized 232Th flux. The content of 232Th in dust used is 13.7 in the original study, here recalculated to 14 ppm. Grain size assumed.
Williams et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

1MC_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: model based on 14C dates for core top and bottom. Used the topmost four samples, and the age of the fourth sample (bottom) was assumed to be linear with depth between dated top and bottom of the profile. Total sediment flux based on 230Th normalization. Focusing factor not calculated (Costa et al., 2020). EC based on 232Th, assuming 14 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Marcantonio et al. (2014), Costa et al. (2020)

7MC_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: model based on 14C dates for core top and bottom. Used all 12 samples from core. Total sediment flux based on 230Th normalization. Focusing factor >1.3 (2.66, Costa et al., 2020). EC based on 232Th, assuming 14 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Marcantonio et al. (2014), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

39MC-36BB_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Core chronologies were established with four radiocarbon dates on G. ruber: 0 cm and 8 cm depth in multicores, and two depths in the Big Bertha piston cores that bracketed the ?18O maximum inferred to represent Marine Isotope Stage 2, and with linear interpolation between dates. Used the five Holocene samples of Costa et al. (2016) for the calculation. Focusing factor not calculated (Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Costa et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

ML1208-37BB_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: delta-18O correlation and 14C. Focusing factor not calculated (Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Jacobel et al. (2017), Costa et al. (2020)

ODP138-853B-1H_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: based on delta-18O correlation. Bulk pelagic MAR based on 230Th. Focusing factor =0.9. EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
McGee et al. (2007), Albani et al. (2015)

KL15_Gulf-of-Aden
pi-HOL
Focusing factor approx. 1.1. Dust flux based on 230Th-normalized 232Th flux, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Palchan and Torfstein (2019)

Jikariya-Lake_Nigeria
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on 14C (error on ages based on errors of discrete ages, as errors of modeled ages are not tabulated). EC considers organic content, carbonates and biogenic silica. No correction for sediment focusing. Grain size based on a visual estimation of median values.
Cockerton et al. (2014)

Kajemarum-Oasis_Nigeria
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on 14C (error on ages based on errors of discrete ages, as errors of modeled ages are not tabulated). EC considers organic content, carbonates and biogenic silica. No correction for sediment focusing. Grain size from close-by site (Jikariya Lake, Nigeria).
Cockerton et al. (2014)

74KL_Arabian-Sea
pi-HOL
Ages: 14C and delta-O18 correlation. Used all eight Holocene samples. Focusing factor not calculated (Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed as in close-by site.
Sirocko et al. (1993), Marcantonio et al. (2001), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

RC27-42_Arabian-Sea
pi-HOL
Ages: combination of 14C ages and correlation of delta-18O. Assume sample thickness is 2 cm. Bulk pelagic MAR is 230Th-normalized, and the focusing factor is not calculated (Costa et al., 2020). EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 232Th in dust of 14 ppm rather than 10.7 ppm. Grain size assumed (Albani et al., 2015).
Clemens and Prell (1990), Clemens et al. (1998), Pourmand et al. (2007), Albani et al. (2015), Costa et al. (2020)

MD03-2705_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: 14C. A total of 10 Holocene samples were used for the calculation. Focusing factor >1.3 (1.52, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size from near-by site ODP 658 (Tiedemann et al., 1989): estimated visually from 0-2-um (100%) and 6-63-um fraction (7%), plus 100% of the remaining 2-6-um fraction.
Tiedemann et al. (1989), Meckler et al. (2013), Costa et al. (2020)

KL11_Red-Sea
pi-HOL
Focusing factor approx. 1.0. Dust flux based on 230Th-normalized 232Th flux, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Palchan and Torfstein (2019)

OC437-07-GC68_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: model based on 14C dates. Focusing factor >1.3 (1.41, Costa et al., 2020). The grain size fraction was calculated based on Albani et al. (2015). Total sediment flux based on 230Th normalization. EC is based on grain-size modelling, and calculation of organic C, opal and carbonate contents.
McGee et al. (2013), Albani et al. (2015), Costa et al. (2020)

OC437-07-GC66_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: model based on 14C dates. The top 35 samples were used for the calculation. Focusing factor >1.3 (4.13, Costa et al., 2020). The grain size fraction was calculated based on Albani et al. (2015). Total sediment flux based on 230Th normalization. EC is based on grain-size modelling, and carbonates, organic C and opal contents.
McGee et al. (2013), Albani et al. (2015), Costa et al. (2020)

OC437-07-GC49_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: model based on 14C dates. Focusing factor >1.3 (1.91, Costa et al., 2020). Total sediment flux based on 230Th normalization. EC based on grain size modelling, carbonate, opal and organic C contents. Grain size based on full distribution.
McGee et al. (2013), Albani et al. (2015), Costa et al. (2020)

KL23_Red-Sea
pi-HOL
Focusing factor approx. 1.3. Dust flux based on 230Th-normalized 232Th flux, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Palchan and Torfstein (2019)

OC437-07-GC37_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: model based on 14C dates. Assume thickness interval of each sample is 2 cm. Total sediment flux based on 230Th normalization. Focusing factor >1.3 (1.51, Costa et al., 2020). EC based on grain size modelling, carbonate, opal and organic C contents. Grain size based on full distribution.
McGee et al. (2013), Albani et al. (2015), Costa et al. (2020)

Yuexi_China
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on AMS 14C. Values not tabulated for age model so careful measurement in Illustrator was performed. The embrotrophic section is above 8.8 ka BP. Density was estimated visually. Dust fluxes in the paper were calculated for Zr and the sum of REE, with the former representing natural and the latter total dust flux, according to the authors. Here, the Zr calculation is used. EC was calculated using a UCC value of Zr of 193 ug/g (Rudnick and Gao, 2003), and a value of mean Zr in the peat profile of 21.382 ug/g (for the ombrotrophic part above 50 cm depth, blank subtracted). No PCA analysis was performed, and neither was an analysis of volcanic contributions. Grain size not measured, and there are no close-by sites with measured grain size. It was assumed to be the average value of measured peat bog sites.
Peng et al. (2021)

12JPC_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: late Holocene dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (17.11, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Gutjahr et al. (2008), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

Mt.-Harif_Israel
pi-HOL
Ages: one single OSL age. Depth uncertainty assumed. Carbonates reported (all carbonates were assumed pedogenic), not TOC (unit is loess). Grain size fraction calculated as 50% of <20-micron fraction.
Crouvi et al. (2009)

OC437-07-GC27_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: model based on 14C dates. Total sediment flux based on 230Th normalization. Focusing factors are higher than 1.3 (1.4, Costa et al., 2020). EC is the terrigenous component (after removal of opal, organic C and carbonates) that corresponds to dust (grain size end-member modeling). Grain size based on full distribution.
McGee et al. (2013), Albani et al. (2015)

Ramat-Beka_Israel
pi-HOL
Ages: one single OSL age. Depth uncertainty assumed. Carbonates reported (all carbonates were assumed pedogenic), not TOC (unit is loess). Grain size fraction from close-by site (Mt. Harif, Israel).
Crouvi et al. (2008)

Hura-Village_Israel
pi-HOL
Ages: one single OSL age. Depth uncertainty assumed. Carbonates reported (all carbonates were assumed pedogenic), not TOC (unit is loess). Grain size fraction from close-by site (Mt. Harif, Israel).
Crouvi et al. (2008)

Ganzi_China
pi-HOL
Ages: based on pedostratigraphy. Grain size assumed.
Sun et al. (2000)

Hongtushan_China
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL. I only used these ages (not older ones) because the layers they were in contained gravel (from fluvial activity?). Depth uncertainty assumed, density assumed. No TOC/carbonates reported: it is loessic. Grain size assumed.
Huang et al. (2022)

Shankerpora_India
pi-HOL
Coordinates approximate as not reported in study. Density assumed. Depth error assumed. Neither TOC nor carbonates are reported, not possible to decide if loess or soil: assumed EC = 0.96. Grain size assumed.
Meenakshi et al. (2018)

Zhouqu_China
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on OSL and AMS 14C ages, measured in Illustrator. Assumed envelope was 2-sigma. Density measured. No TOC/carbonates reported, mostly S0. Grain size estimated from mean value visually.
Yang et al. (2021)

Qumalai-2_China
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL. Depth uncertainty assumed, density assumed. No TOC/carbonates reported: it is mostly (paleo)soil. Grain size assumed.
Huang et al. (2022)

Qumalai-5_China
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL. Depth uncertainty assumed, density assumed. No TOC/carbonates reported: half paleosoil half loess. Grain size assumed.
Huang et al. (2022)

Baimapo_China
pi-HOL
Ages based on TL. All sections in this work ares considered as purely aeolian. It a well-developed soil. Density from close-by site. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Sun et al. (2000)

Shiguanzhi_China
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL. Density from close-by site. Grain size from close-by site (Baimapo, China). No TOC and carbonates estimates (half S0 and half L1). MAR was estimated from sedimentation rate reported in study.
Stevens et al. (2006)

Chenjiawo-Lantian-1_China
pi-HOL
Ages: based on pedostratigraphy. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution. Density from close-by site.
Sun et al. (2000)

Duanjiapo-Lantian-2_China
pi-HOL
Ages: based on MS. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution. Density from close-by site.
Sun et al. (2000)

Zhangjiayuan_China
pi-HOL
Ages: pedostratigraphy. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Wei et al. (1991), Sun et al. (2000)

Jiezicun-Jiezhichun_China
pi-HOL
Ages: TL. Well-developed soil. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution. Density from close-by site.
Sun et al. (2000)

Baoji-Lingyuan_China
pi-HOL
Ages: based on MS. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Sun et al. (2000)

Weinan-Yangguo_China
pi-HOL
Ages: 14C. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution curve. Density from close-by site.
Liu et al. (1994), Sun et al. (2000)

Weinan-2_China
pi-HOL
Ages: 4-11-micron quartz OSL. Density from close-by site. Neither TOC nor carbonates reported. There is a mixture of loess and paleosols. Grain size estimated from mean grain size.
Kang et al. (2018)

Weinan_China
pi-HOL
Ages: quartz OSL. No TOC/carbonates informed, layer is darker than underlying loess. Grain size taken from neaby site (Weinan (Yangguo), China).
Kang et al. (2013)

Wulipu_China
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL. Density assumed. Grain size calculated from 0-5 micron (100%) + (the remaining percentage - 10-50 micron)/2. TOC and carbonates estimated visually.
Huang et al. (2003), Zhao, Xia et al. (2022)

Laoguantai_China
pi-HOL
Ages: post-IR OSL. Density from close-by site. Carbonates reported, not TOC (mostly paleosol). Grain size calculated as 2x 0-5 micron fraction.
Jia et al. (2008)

Gaobai_China
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on OSL. Density assumed. Grain size from mean value. No TOC/carbonates: seems loessic from picture.
Kang et al. (2020)

Caocun_China
pi-HOL
Ages: based on pedostratigraphy. Grain size assumed.
Sun et al. (2000)

Banshan_China
pi-HOL
Ages: based on pedostratigraphy. Grain size assumed.
Sun et al. (2000)

Chunhua_China
pi-HOL
Ages: based on MS. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Sun et al. (2000)

Yaoxian-I_China
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL ages. No carbonates or TOC, layer is S0. Density from close-by site. Grain size taken from close-by site (Chunhua, China).
Dong et al. (2015)

Yaoxian-II-YX_China
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL ages. No carbonates or TOC, layer is mixture of loess and S0. Density assumed. Grain size taken from close-by site.
Zhao et al. (2007)

Yinwan_China
pi-HOL
Ages: calibrated 14C ages. Most is "soil", one third is loess. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Sun et al. (2000)

Dadiwan_China
pi-HOL
Ages: calibrated 14C ages. Half are loess units, half is well-developed soils. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Sun et al. (2000)

Lingtai_China
pi-HOL
Ages: based on mag. suscept. Thickness was specified so that the mean MAR was that which was reported. Density was measured. Grain size is assumed.
Sun and An (2005)

Xunyi_China
pi-HOL
Ages: based on MS. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Sun et al. (1995, 2000)

Changwu_China
pi-HOL
Ages: pedostratigraphy. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Sun et al. (2000)

Jingchuan_China
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL ages. No carbonates or TOC, layer is S0. Density is average of two close-by site, where it was measured. Grain size assumed.
Dong et al. (2015)

V32-126_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: not clear what dating method was used. Focusing factor >1.3 (3.23, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, assuming 14 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Lao et al. (1992), Costa et al. (2020)

Xinghai_China
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL. Depth uncertainty assumed, density assumed. No TOC/carbonates reported: half is loess and half is paleosol. Grain size estimated as 50% of the <20-micron fraction.
Huang et al. (2022)

Tongde_China
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL. Depth uncertainty assumed, density assumed. No TOC/carbonates reported: all is loess. Grain size estimated as 50% of the <20-micron fraction.
Huang et al. (2022)

Ningxian_China
pi-HOL
Ages: MS. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Sun et al. (1995, 2000)

Xifeng-II_China
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL. Density from close-by site. Grain size from close-by site (Ningxian, China). No TOC and carbonates estimates (S0). MAR was estimated from sedimentation rate reported in study.
Stevens et al. (2006)

Baxie-Dongxiang_China
pi-HOL
Ages: calibrated 14C ages. Most is "soil", one third is loess. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Sun et al. (2000)

Beiyuan_China
pi-HOL
Ages: based on MS. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Sun et al. (2000)

Huanglong_China
pi-HOL
Ages: based on MS. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Ding et al. (1999), Sun et al. (2000)

Yuanpu-Yuanbo-Xinzhuangyuan_China
pi-HOL
Based on two determinations. Det I: Ages: based on one 14C. Well-developed soil. Det II: Ages: based on MS. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Ren (1996), Sun et al. (2000)

Duowa_China
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL, based on Albani et al. (2015). Grain size from size classes. Organic content negligible.  Carbonates?
Derbyshire (1982), Roberts et al. (2001), Maher et al. (2003), Albani et al. (2015)

Yuanbao_China
pi-HOL
Ages: quartz OSL ages. Density was assumed by the authors. No TOC/carbonates reported. No sections reported, so no way to decide if EC = 0.94 or 0.98 based on field description. I assume EC = 0.96. Grain size assumed.
Lai and Wintle (2006), Lai et al. (2007)

Xifeng_China
pi-HOL
Ages: MS. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution. Density from same site (LGM section).
Liu and Ding (1993), Sun et al. (2000)

Zhaojiachuan_China
pi-HOL
Ages: based on mag. suscept. Thickness was specified so that the mean MAR was that which was reported. Density was measured. Grain size is assumed.
Sun and An (2005)

Renjiahutong/Heimugou-2/Luochuan_China
pi-HOL
Based on three determinations. Det II: Ages: pedostratigraphy. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution. Det III: Ages: OSL, not includes agricultural disturbance. Based on Albani et al. (2015). Grain size assumed. Organic content negligible. Carbonates?
Derbyshire (1982), Forman (1991), Zhou et al. (1994), Li and Wang (1998), Sun et al. (2000), Lu et al. (2013), Albani et al. (2015)

LGG_China
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on OSL. Density from close-by site. Grain size from mean value. No TOC/carbonates: seems loessic from picture.
Kang et al. (2020)

Mengdashan_China
pi-HOL
Ages: based on pedostratigraphy. Grain size from close-by sites (Gaolanshan, China).
Cheng and Zhang (1994), Sun et al. (2000)

Gaolanshan_China
pi-HOL
Ages: 14C. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Sun et al. (2000)

Beiyuantou_China
pi-HOL
Ages: MS. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Sun et al. (1995), Sun et al. (2000)

Landa_China
pi-HOL
Ages: 14C. Grain size from close-by site (Gaolanshan, China). Equal parts loess and soil.
Chen et al. (1991), Sun et al. (2000)

Jiuzhoutai-Lanzhou_China
pi-HOL
Ages: 14C. Well-developed soil. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Sun et al. (2000)

Xiadongcun-Jixian_China
pi-HOL
Ages: pedostratigraphy (there are two conflicting versions of MS, so did not use those). Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Han et al. (1991), Sun et al. (2000)

Robat-e-Khakestari_Iran
pi-HOL
Ages: one single IRSL age (maybe underestimated due to bioturbation). Depth error and density assumed. Carbonate reported in general for the region, not TOC. Grain size estimated from clay (100%) and silt (13%) fractions.
Karimi et al. (2011)

Lijiayuan_China
pi-HOL
Ages: MS. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Ren (1996), Sun et al. (2000)

Yichuan_China
pi-HOL
Ages: based on MS. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Ding et al. (1999), Sun et al. (2000)

Baicaoyuan_China
pi-HOL
Ages: MS. Grain size from close-by site: Beiyuantou.
Sun et al. (1995, 2000)

Majiayuan_China
pi-HOL
DBD assumed as in original paper.
Chu (1998), Sun et al. (2000)

Jingyuan_China
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL smoothed. Could not retrieve size distribution from Albani et al. (2015): assume it. In Sun et al. (2010) it is stated that the upper 1.75 m characterized by dark brown color (rich in organic matter).
Sun et al. (2010, 2012), Albani et al. (2015)

Beiguoyuan_China
pi-HOL
I used a BD corresponding to a close section (i.e., Xifeng in Stevens et al., 2018). Assumed EC = 0.94 because it is a soil (no data on OM/carb).
Stevens et al., (2008)

Xiala_China
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL. Depth uncertainty assumed, density assumed. No TOC/carbonates reported: most is loess. Grain size from close-by site (Tongde, China).
Huang et al. (2022)

Huanxian_China
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL ages. No carbonates or TOC, layer is S0. Density assumed. Grain size assumed.
Dong et al. (2015)

Tuxiangdao_China
pi-HOL
Ages: based on pedostratigraphy. Grain size from close-by sites (Xining (Dadunling), China).
Chen et al. (1997), Sun et al. (2000)

Yanchang_China
pi-HOL
Ages: MS. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Ding et al. (1999), Sun et al. (2000)

Beiguoyuan-II_China
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL. Density from close-by site. Grain size from close-by site. No TOC and carbonates estimates (S0). MAR was estimated from sedimentation rate reported in study.
Stevens et al. (2006)

Xining-Dadunling_China
pi-HOL
Ages: based on MS. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution. Half loess half soil.
Han and Jiang (1999), Sun et al. (2000)

Focun_China
pi-HOL
Ages: quartz OSL. Error on depth assumed. Density assumed. No TOC/carbonate data: it is a soil. Grain size estimated visually from mean grain size.
Zhao, Peng et al. (2022)

Shaozhuang_China
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on quartz OSL ages. Tabulated data for age model not available, so used Illustrator. Age uncertainty in figure assumed 2sigma. Density assumed. Error on depth assumed. Neither TOC nor carbonates reported; profile section is S0. Grain size estimated visually from mean.
Zhao, Peng et al. (2022)

Xiangpishan_China
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL. Depth uncertainty assumed, density assumed. No TOC/carbonates reported: 2/3 of profile is loess. Grain size from close-by site (not in this compilation), which was determined based on size bins.
Huang et al. (2022)

Xueyuan_China
pi-HOL
Ages: MS. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Sun et al. (1995, 2000)

Kalat-e-Naderi-a_Iran
pi-HOL
Ages: polymineral fine-grained IRSL. Depth uncertainty and density assumed. Carbonates reported in general for the section, TOC not reported: looks for the most part soil. Grain size estimated from clay (100%) and silt (13%) contents.
Karimi et al. (2011)

Blue-Lake_USA
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian age model based on 14C ages. Modeled ages vs. depth not tabulated, so values were carefully measured in Illustrator. The topmost core was not considered as it is interpreted that dust is partly anthropogenic in nature. No data on the thickess of each sample for 14C. Density reported in this study is that after removal of organic matter: not of the original lake sediment, so higher uncertainty is assigned to density. EC was fixed such that dust flux is that reported in original study (corrected for focusing factor by Arcusa et al., 2020). Organic matter was accounted for. Grain size from near-by site (Crater, USA).
Routson et al. (2019), Arcusa et al. (2020)

Crater_USA
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on 14C. Data not tabulated so measured carefully in Illustrator. Error in depth assumed. Density assumed. EC was fixed so that dust flux is that which was estimated visually (data not tabulated, based on two methods). In the study, dust flux was calculated by first obtaning the mineral fraction (by measuring organic content) and then by a quantitative analysis of the effects of sediment focusing in the lake. Grain size was estimated visually from a GSD plot of the aeolian end member (by visual estimation of area using Illustrator: extra uncertainty).
Arcusa et al. (2020)

Huangyanghe_China
pi-HOL
Ages: AMS 14C. Density assumed. Grain size from clay (100%) and silt (100*8/61 %) fractions. Average of two sections.
Li and Morrill (2015)

Jingbian-II_China
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on OSL ages. No carbonates/TOC. Grain size estimated from <63-micron fraction (16%). Density that of the same profile further down (during deglaciation).
Stevens et al. (2018)

Mujiayuan-Wupu_China
pi-HOL
Ages: MS. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Sun and Ding (1997), Sun et al. (2000)

Jingbian-I_China
pi-HOL
Ages: AMS radiocarbon. Density from close-by site where it was measured. Grain size calculated from clay (100%) and silt (13%) contents, which were estimated visually. TOC reported, but not carbonates.
Xiao et al. (2002)

Yellibadragh_Iran
pi-HOL
No data on density and grain size (both assumed). No data on carbonate or total organic content.
Wei et al. (2021)

V21-146_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: delta-18O correlation. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. Focusing factor is 3.79. EC based on 232Th.
Hovan et al. (1991), Lao et al. (1992), Costa et al. (2020)

XZP_China
pi-HOL
Ages: model based on OSL. Density assumed. Grain size estimated visually from 0-2-micron (100%) and 2-63-micron (8/61 %) fractions. TOC/carbonates not reported: organic rich.
Miao et al. (2022)

Clear_USA
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on 14C. Data not tabulated so measured carefully in Illustrator. Error in depth assumed. Density from close-by sites. EC was fixed so that dust flux is that which was estimated visually (data not tabulated, based on two methods). In the study, dust flux was calculated by first obtaning the mineral fraction (by measuring organic content) and then by a quantitative analysis of the effects of sediment focusing in the lake: thus. Grain size was estimated visually from a GSD plot of the aeolian end member (by visual estimation of area using Illustrator).
Arcusa et al. (2020)

Columbine_USA
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on 14C. Data not tabulated so measured carefully in Illustrator. Error in depth assumed. Density from close-by sites. EC was fixed so that dust flux is that which was estimated visually (data not tabulated, based on two methods). In the study, dust flux was calculated by first obtaning the mineral fraction (by measuring organic content) and then by a quantitative analysis of the effects of sediment focusing in the lake. Grain size was estimated visually from a GSD plot of the aeolian end member (by visual estimation of area using Illustrator).
Arcusa et al. (2020)

Phorphyry_USA
pi-HOL
This is a  sediment core. Single data point. Authors explicitly argue for a mostly aeolian origin, they extracted organic matter and carbonates, but do not report those contents. Particle size distribution is from a distribution curve. The sediment focusing factor by Arcusa et al. (2020) was applied to EC. Error in depth assumed.
Neff et al. (2008), Arcusa et al. (2020)

Neor-Lake_Iran
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on 14C ages. Error on depth not reported. The full profile is ombrotrophic. The authors calculate a dust flux based on Ti. EC was fixed to coincide with the reported mean dust flux for the period. No PCA was performed, neither was an anaysis of potential volcanic inputs. Only Ti was used. Grain size fron GSD curve.
Sharifi et al. (2015), Sharifi et al. (2018)

Zhenbeitai_China
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on OSL ages, measured in Illustrator. No carbonates/TOC, layer described as sandy loess. Grain size estimated from mean value, visually. Density assumed.
Wu et al. (2019)

Tajik-Basin_Tajikistan
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL. Depths were not tabulated so measured them with Illustrator. Density assumed. Neither TOC nor carbonates reported: described as paleosol. The less-than-10-micron fraction was estimated visually from size bins.
Tian et al. (2021)

Hoalin_Tajikistan
pi-HOL
Ages: one fine-grained quartz OSL age. Depth error assumed. Density measured. Grain size estimated visually from mean grain size. Neither TOC nor carbonates reported: the profile is described as loess in general, but does not specify this upper layer considered here. Thus, assume to be soil.
Wang et al. (2018)

Barton-County_USA
pi-HOL
Grain size from distribution, explicitly assumes all aeolian, does not discuss fluvial component. Single data point. Bottom age is based on 14-C age of uppermost part of directly underlying Brady Soil. An age uncertainty of 2x that of the mean of 14-C dating included in this compilation is applied (2 x 3.4% = 6.8%).
Bettis III et al. (2003)

Kirpichny_Tajikistan
pi-HOL
Ages: one single OSL age approximately 5 cm below the bottom of the cultivation layer. Given that this age is not affected by cultivation, it is used. No TOC/carbonates, described as Holocene soil. Density from close-by site where it was measured. Grain size from close-by site where it was estimated visually from mean grain size.
Yang et al. (2020)

Beisel-Steinle_USA
pi-HOL
Grain size from distribution, explicitly assumes all aeolian, does not discuss fluvial component. Single data point. Bottom age is based on 14-C bulk age of Brady Soil: uncertainty is assumed 4x that of the mean 14-C uncertainty for sites in PaleoDust with measurements.
Bettis III et al. (2003)

Qilian-Shan-section-E4_China
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL. Density assumed. Grain size assumed. No TOC/carbonates, described as loess.
Zhang et al. (2015)

Qilian-Shan-section-E1_China
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL. Density assumed. Grain size assumed. No TOC/carbonates, described as loess.
Zhang et al. (2015)

Qilian-Shan-section-E5_China
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL. Density assumed. Grain size assumed. No TOC/carbonates, described as loess.
Zhang et al. (2015)

Rudak_Uzbekistan
pi-HOL
Ages: quartz OSL. Density assumed. Neither TOC nor carbonates reported: from profile it is 50% loess and 50% modern soil. No grain size data.
Zhang et al. (2020)

Qilian-Shan-section-C1_China
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL. Density assumed. Grain size assumed. No TOC/carbonates, described as loess.
Zhang et al. (2015)

Qilian-Shan-section-W3_China
pi-HOL
Ages: OSL. Density assumed. Grain size assumed. No TOC/carbonates, described as loess.
Zhang et al. (2015)

Peters/Speed_USA
pi-HOL
Grain size taken as that of a close-by site (Barton County, which has full size distribution), explicitly assumes all aeolian, does not discuss fluvial component. Single data point. Bottom age is based on 14-C age of the topmost part of directly underlying unit. Uncertainty in bottom age is assumed 2x the mean of 14-C ages in PaleoDust.
Bettis III et al. (2003)

RC14-105_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: late Holocene dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (8.86, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size from close-by site where it was calculated based on mean.
Rea and Leinen (1988), Lao et al. (1992), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

Chagelebulu-1-Cagelebulu_China
pi-HOL
Ages: calibrated 14C ages. 2/3 is loess, one third is soil. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Sun et al. (2000)

Zhaitang_China
pi-HOL
Ages based on pedostratigraphy. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution.
Sun et al. (2000)

SU90-03_Atlantic-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: late Holocene dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor not calculated (Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Chapman et al. (2000), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

Naponee_USA
pi-HOL
Grain size from distribution, explicitly assumes all aeolian, does not discuss fluvial component. Single data point. Bottom age is based on 14-C bulk age of Brady Soil: uncertainty is assumed 4x that of the mean 14-C uncertainty for sites in PaleoDust with measurements.
Bettis III et al. (2003)

Kuma_USA
pi-HOL
The authors present a continuous age model, but do not report tabulated age vs. depth. I contacted the author and she provided information on modeled ages. Density is assumed as in Bettis et al. (2003), since it is not reported in the study. EC is not reported. Material is considered predominantly eolian, but amount of post-depositional carbonates and organic matter are not reported. Because this calculation is done for a soil section, EC = 0.94 is assumed. Grain size data was provided to my by the authors.
Constantin et al. (2021), D. Constantin (pers. comm., 2022)

OWR_USA
pi-HOL
nd
Miao et al. (2007), Albani et al. (2015)

Bignell-Hill-1_USA
pi-HOL
Grain size from distribution, explicitly assumes all aeolian, does not discuss fluvial component. Single data point.
Bettis III et al. (2003), Roberts et al. (2003)

LRC_USA
pi-HOL
Miao et al. (2007) shows in its stratigrahic column that it is organic-rich.
Miao et al. (2007), Albani et al. (2015)

Kyrgyz_Kazakhstan
pi-HOL
Ages: quartz OSL (90-250 microns). Thickness based on careful measurement on a Figure using Illustrator. Diameter of sampler assumed. Density assumed. No organic matter or carbonate quantifications, but section looks light. Grain size estimated as 100% clay + 13% silt, based on average values of the full section.
Youn et al. (2014)

Hani_China
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on 14C. The full profile is considered ombrotrophic. Modeled ages not tabulated, so ages and depths were carefully measured in Illustrator. Density was estimated visually. Dust flux was calculated based on the sum of REE; this choice was done after a PCA analysis. However, the sum of REE is not tabulated, so EC was defined as that which made the dust flux equal the mean reported in the study (estimated visually from a figure). Grain size was estimated visually from the median (the median grain size was 10 microns, so the <10-micron fraction is defined as 0.5).
Pratte et al. (2020)

ZS_China
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on quartz OSL ages: the model is not tabulated, so used the figure and careful measurements in Illustrator. The uncertainty on the top age is based on the uncertainty of an individual age of 0.55 ka for this profile (assumed 1sigma). Density and its uncertainty is assumed by the authors. Neither carbonates nor TOC is reported; from photo of the profile it seems dark soil. Grain size estimated from mean gran size, and visually estimated from a figure.
Kang et al. (2022)

Valikhanov_Kazakhstan
pi-HOL
Ages: 14C. Density assumed. Both TOC and carbonates measured. Grain size estimated visually from mean value.
Feng et al. (2011)

Romantic_Kazakhstan
pi-HOL
Ages: 14C of charcoal and snail (sedimentary 14C ages discarded by authors). Density assumed. Both TOC and carbonates measured. Grain size estimated visually from mean value.
Feng et al. (2011)

NLT17_China
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on FK OSL ages (Kang et al., 2022): the model is not tabulated, so used the figure and careful measurements in Illustrator. The uncertainty on the top age is based on the uncertainty of an individual age of 0.4 ka for this profile (assumed 1sigma). Density form close-by site. Carbonates reported (close to 0%), but not TOC is reported; from photo of the profile it seems dark soil. Grain size estimated from a nearby site, which has mean gran size (visually estimated from a figure).
Li et al. (2020), Kang et al. (2022)

TLD16_China
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on quartz OSL ages: the model is not tabulated, so used the figure and careful measurements in Illustrator. The uncertainty on the top age is based on the uncertainty of an individual age of 0.4 ka for this profile (assumed 1sigma). Density from close-by site. Carbonates reported, not TOC; from photo of the profile it seems half is loess and half is dark soil. Grain size estimated from mean gran size, and visually estimated from a figure.
Wang et al. (2019b), Kang et al. (2022)

TLD_China
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on quartz OSL ages: the model is not tabulated, so used the figure and careful measurements in Illustrator. The uncertainty on the top age is based on the uncertainty of an individual age of 0.74 ka for this profile (assumed 1sigma). Density from close-by site. Neither carbonates nor TOC is reported; from photo of the profile it seems half is loess and half is dark soil. Grain size estimated from mean gran size, and visually estimated from a figure.
Kang et al. (2022)

XY17_China
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on FK OSL ages: the model is not tabulated, so used the figure and careful measurements in Illustrator. Error of top age based on a single age uncertainty: that of 2.00 ka BP. Density from close-by site. Carbonates reported (15%), not TOC: layer is strongly pedogenized. Grain size from near-by site (TLD, China): estimated from mean gran size, and visually estimated from a figure.
Li et al. (2020), Kang et al. (2022)

XEB_China
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on quartz OSL ages: the model is not tabulated, so used the figure and careful measurements in Illustrator. The uncertainty on the top age is based on the uncertainty of an individual age of 1.13 ka for this profile (assumed 1sigma). Density from close-by site. Neither carbonates nor TOC is reported; from photo of the profile it seems loess. Grain size estimated from mean gran size, and visually estimated from a figure.
Kang et al. (2022)

Xiaoerbulake_China
pi-HOL
Ages: discrete OSL ages, reported uncertainty assumed 1sigma. Density from close-by site. No TOC/carbonates measured, layer is mostly loess. Grain size for the Holocene not available, used the same one as for the LGM section (with 10% extra uncertainty... the LGM calculation was based on a visual estimation of the mean value).
Li et al. (2016)

Xistral-Mountains_Spain
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian modeling based on 14C. Only used ombrotrophic section (0-330 cm depth). Modeled ages and depths not tabulated, so they were carefully measured in Illustrator. Density was estimated visually. A PCA was performed, and no analysis on potential volcanic ash inputs was done. The authors argue that using the ash content is the best approach to calculate dust fluxes (they find that ash content is part of PC1 together with lithogenic, inmobile elements). EC was fixed so that DMAR = 4 (estimated visually). Grain size not measured, and there are no close-by sites with measured grain size. It was assumed to be the average value of measured peat bog sites.
Cortizas et al. (2020)

KS15-05_China
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on FK OSL ages: the model is not tabulated, so used the figure and careful measurements in Illustrator. Density measured. Neither carbonates nor TOC reported: no description of profile. Grain size estimated from mean gran size, and visually estimated from a figure.
Wang et al. (2019a), Kang et al. (2022)

Nilka_China
pi-HOL
Ages: quartz OSL. Density form close-by site. Neither TOC nor carbonates reported, no description of units, but from photograph does not look dark. Grain size assumed.
Song et al. (2015)

LJW10_China
pi-HOL
Ages: Bayesian modeling based on OSL ages. Tabulated data for the model was not available, so I carefully measured depths and ages in the figure using Illustrator. I assumed the uncertainty in the figure to be 1sigma. The uncertainty on the surface was assumed to be the same in absolute terms as the modeled uncertainty for the bottom age. Carbonates and TOC are not reported: based on description of profile it looks more like a soil than a pure loess unit. Density was assumed. Grain size was assumed.
Li et al. (2015, 2020)

Lujiaowan_China
pi-HOL
Ages: 14C. Grain size assumed.
Wen and Zheng (1987), Sun et al. (2000)

Borehole-OT-1_Russia
pi-HOL
Age: quartz/feldspar OSL, linear model. Density is assumed. EC estimated from LOI950, which is plotted but not tabulated (estimated visually). Grain size is estimated from plot (full size distribution).
Sychev et al. (2022)

Zeketai_China
pi-HOL
Ages: 14C of snail. Density assumed. Both TOC and carbonates measured. Grain size estimated visually from mean value.
Feng et al. (2011)

Irig_Serbia
pi-HOL
They modeled MARs including uncertainty. The <10-micron fraction was estimated as 100% of the <2-micron fraction + 13.1% of the 2-63 fraction.
Peric et al. (2022b)

Stari-Slankamen_Serbia
pi-HOL
Two MAR estimates, one from Schmidt et al. (2010), Ujvri et al. (2010): Surface soil horizon overlying loess. Post-depositional carbonates/TOC not reported. Another from Murray et al. (2014) and Peric et al. (2022b): from a model of MARs with uncertainties. Took average and propagated uncertainty. Grain size from close-by sites (full size distribution).
Schmidt et al. (2010), Ujvri et al. (2010), Murray et al. (2014), Peric et al. (2022b)

Veliki-Surduk_Serbia
pi-HOL
Both Constantin et al. (2019) and Peric et al. (2019) report data that is appropriate for calculating Holocene MARs at this site. I chose to use the data from Constantin et al. (2019) because based on our methodology, a less uncertain MAR can be calculated from this study. Grain size assumed. No data on post-dep organic matter/carbonates: assume EC = 0.94 because it is a soil.
Constantin et al. (2019)

Rmnicu-S?rat_Romania
pi-HOL
Grain size not reported. Not on Albani et al. (2014) either, assume it. Density assumed.
Constantin et al. (2019)

Crvenka_Serbia
pi-HOL
They used two age models. Here, I used the combined age model. Relative error on ages are those of the closest measured ages. Grain size is measured but not reported as a table or as any other retrievable way. Unit described as surface soil (dark).
Stevens et al. (2011)

Huangshan_China
pi-HOL
Ages: MS (no tie point between 19-26.5), had to carefully measure depths from figure using illustrator. Samples for MS taken every 10 cm. Density assumed. TOC measured, but not carbonates. Grain size based on mean of full profile and defined as <4 micron + 0.5 * 4-16 micron.
Wu et al. (2021)

Palouse_USA
pi-HOL
The <10-micron fraction was estimated from the mean and standard deviation of the phi values. The study assumes EC of 1, they discuss loess as mostly eolian, and do not report post-dep carbonates/organic matter. The loess package includes a soil in the lower section.
Sweeney et al. (2005)

Kurortne_Ukraine
pi-HOL
Uncertainty of basal age reported as "0.3  0.0", so assumed 0.04. No description of diameter of sampling apparatus (assumed 3.2 cm). No density reported, assumed a value with 30% uncertainty. Since it is a soil overlying loess, assumed EC = 0.94 (no report on amount of carbonates or TOC). Grain size info not tabulated, cannot be retrieved. Assumed 0.25.
Tecsa et al. (2020)

Primorskoje_Ukraine
pi-HOL
Age: 14-C. Latitude and longitude are approximate. Age uncertainty not reported. Density not reported. No close-by sites available for density info. No grain size info available, took it from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution. "Surface soil".
Gozhik et al. (1995)

Mohos_Romania
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on 14C ages. Ages are not tabulated, so carefully measured depths and ages in Illustrator. Density was estimated visually. No PCA analysis performed, volcanic analysis was performed: a reduction of 5% in EC was done to account for identified volcanic events. Ti was used (normalized to UCC, Rudnick and Gao, 2003). Grain size not measured, and there are no close-by sites with measured grain size. It was assumed to be the average value of measured peat bog sites.
Longman et al. (2017)

Semlac_Romania
pi-HOL
Ages are based on correlation of magnetic susceptibility to benthic foraminifera isotope records. Density not reported, assumed equal to that of near-by site (big error as in that site as well). Carbonate and total organic matter content not reported, but Unit 1 described as dark soil. Grain size from full size distribution.
Zeeden et al. (2016)

Roxolany_Ukraine
pi-HOL
Grain size not reported. Not on Albani et al. (2014), but took a close-by site from Albani 2014 (full size distribution). Density assumed. Unit described in text as humus-rich S0 soil.
Constantin et al. (2019)

V20-122_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: late Holocene dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (3.44, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size from close-by site (full size distribution).
Rea and Leinen (1988), Lao et al. (1992), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

Chumbur-Kosa_Russia
pi-HOL
Age: MS, model not tabulated, calculated depths by careful measurements based on figure using Illustrator. Grain size was estimated visually, based on <5 micron (100%) + 1/3 of 5-20 microns.
Chen et al. (2018b)

Beglitsa_Russia
pi-HOL
Age: quartz OSL. Age uncertainty not clear if 1sigma or 2sigma: assumed 1sigma. No grain size data: assumed.
Chen et al. (2018a)

Debrecen-Alfldi-brickyard_Hungary
pi-HOL
Grain size from close-by sites (full size distribution).
Smegi et al. (2007), Ujvri et al. (2010)

Taul-Muced_Romania
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian modeling based on AMS 14C and 210Pb ages. The modeled ages are tabulated but not the modeled errors, which were measured in Illustrator (assumed to be 2-sigma errors). Only the ombrotrophic section considered, and last 200 years discarded due to identified stronger anthropogenic influence. It was assumed that the thickness of the samples on which ages were determined was 1 cm. Grain size calculated as <3.9-um fraction + 3.9-7.8-um fraction + 0.28 * 7.8-15.6-um fraction. EC was calculated using the mean of Zr/Zr_UCC and Ti/Ti_UCC. No volcanic analysis was performed.
Panait et al. (2019)

Leninsk-I_Russia
pi-HOL
OSL: bayesian model based on quartz OSL. Density, depth error and grain size assumed. Neither TOC nor carbonates reported: described as soil formed on loess.
Kurbanov et al. (2022)

Baie_Canada
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on 14C and 210Pb. Error on modeled ages not tabulated: used the same relative uncertainty as that of the closest calibrated 14C ages. Density from tabulated data. Ombrotrophic section is 0-3800 a BP. Grain size: from full distribution curve. Sum of REE (La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu) used for dust flux, normalized to 147.44 ug/g (Rudnick and Gao, 2003). PCA performed. No potential volcanic input analysis.
Pratte et al. (2017a, 2017b), S. Pratte (pers. comm.)

Ile-du-Havre_Canada
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on 14C and 210Pb. Error on modeled ages not tabulated: used the same relative uncertainty as that of the closest calibrated 14C ages. Density from tabulated data. Ombrotrophic section is 0-5000 a BP. Grain size: from full distribution curve. Sum of REE (La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu) used for dust flux, normalized to 147.44 ug/g (Rudnick and Gao, 2003). PCA performed. No potential volcanic input analysis.
Pratte et al. (2017a, 2017b), S. Pratte (pers. comm.)

GGC37-VG19_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: the sample was obtained between 2-4 cm depth, and a reported age of 3.2 ka BP is assumed here to correpond to the 4-cm depth (the age at 2 cm is assumed to be 1.6 ka BP). Total sediment flux based on 230Th normalization. Focusing factor not calculated (Costa et al., 2020). EC based on 232Th. Grain size from close-by site (full size distribution).
Robinson et al. (2008), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

Misten_Belgium
pi-HOL
Coordinates are approximate, as they are not reported in the paper. Ages: bayesian model based on 14C. The error in ages is based on assuming that the max/min ages reported in the dataset that was provided by G. Le Roux correspond to the 95% confidence interval. The lower bound is the fen-bog transition, while the upper bound is the base of the section that was identified to be influenced anthropogenically. The concentration of elements was not reported: EC was fixed so that the calculated dust flux coincided with that reported. The DMAR was calculated as the mean of that calculated based on Zr and that based on the sum of REE (which were assumed not to include Y and Sc). No PCA analysis was performed. Nd isotopes were used to evaluate volcanic contributions. No grain size data: f10 was that of the global mean of peat bogs with grain size data.
Allan et al. (2013), G. Le Roux (pers. comm.)

Pegwell-Bay_UK
pi-HOL
Not clear if age model uncertainty reported in supplementary info is 1 or 2sigma. I contacted the corresponding author: it is basically 2sigma. Density not measured, but explicitly assumed in the original study a given value. Use that value. Since no close-by sites are available with density data, assign 30% uncertainty. No info on carbonate content or TOC. The study mentions an organic rich surface soil up to 25 cm depth, but ages considered here are below that. Grain size from full distribution curve.
Stevens et al. (2020)

LG2_Canada
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on 14C and 210Pb. Error on modeled ages not tabulated: used the same relative uncertainty as that of the closest calibrated 14C ages. Density from tabulated data. Ombrotrophic section is 0-4100 a BP. Grain size: from full distribution curve. Sum of REE (La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, Tb) used for dust flux, normalized to 148.14 ug/g (Rudnick and Gao, 2003). PCA performed. No potential volcanic input analysis.
Pratte et al. (2017c), S. Pratte (pers. comm.)

Likhvin_Russia
pi-HOL
14C age uncertainty not reported. TOC reported, but not carbonates. Density not reported. <10 micron fraction estimated as <2 fraction + one sixth of 2-63 fraction
Panin et al. (2021)

ODP-887_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: late Holocene dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor not calculated (Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. No grain size data.
Galbraith et al. (2007), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

Lozhok_Russia
pi-HOL
Ages: based on modelling of OSL ages. Modeled ages were based on careful measurement in a Figure on Illustrator (no tabulated data in paper). Uncertainty in ages in the Figure assumed to be 1sigma. Density assumed as was in turn assumed in a close-by site. This is a humic soil. Grain size not measured: assumed.
Volvakh et al. (2022)

RC14-121_Pacific-Ocean
pi-HOL
Ages: late Holocene dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (1.93, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Sancetta (1985), Lao et al. (1992), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

Davidsmosse_Sweden
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on AMS 14C ages. Only ombrotrophic section considered here. Density estimated visually. To calculate dust fluxes, Ti was used (UCC from Rudnick and Gao, 2003). They did not measure Sc or REE (typical lithophile elements). PCA was performed. No volcanic analysis was performed. Grain size not measured, and there are no close-by sites with measured grain size. It was assumed to be the average value of measured peat bog sites.
Sjstrm et al. (2022)

Draftinge-Mosse_Sweden
pi-HOL
Ages: bayesian model based on AMS 14C ages (not tabulated, so modeled ages and thickness was carefully measured in Illustrator). Density estimated visually. Sc is used to study dust in this study, but dust fluxes are not shown or tabulated. The rate of Sc deposition (not normalized) is the same as that of Davidsmosse site, so for Draftinge Mosse the same dust MAR was assumed as that other site, and so EC was fixed to achieve that dust MAR. PCA analysis was performed, but not an analysis of volcanic ash input. That would imply EC = 0.1, but given the higher uncertainty of EC in this site, EC = 0.3. Grain size not measured, and there are no close-by sites with measured grain size. It was assumed to be the average value of measured peat bog sites.
Sjstrm et al. (2020)

Store-Mosse, Sweden
pi-HOL
AAges: bayesian model based on 14C ages. Only the ombrotrophic section was considered, and within the ombrotrophic section, only the section with no anthropogenic influence. Uncertainty of modelled ages not tabulated, so it was carefully measured with Illustrator based on the high-resolution figure of the age model (the same with the thickness). Density was measured and tabulated. EC was calculated based on the sum of Sc, Y, Zr, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu and Th. This selection was based on a principal component analysis. Normalization to UCC concentrations based on Rudnick and Gap (2003). No volcanic input analysis. Grain size not measured, and there are no close-by sites with measured grain size. It was assumed to be the average value of measured peat bog sites.
Kylander et al. (2013, 2016)

Grshjden_Sweden
pi-HOL
Not clear if age model uncertainty reported in supplementary info is 1 or 2sigma. Assumed 1sigma. Grain size is measured but no tabulated data is available.
Stevens et al. (2022)

Finnhjden_Sweden
pi-HOL
Not clear if age model uncertainty reported in supplementary info is 1 or 2sigma. Assumed 1sigma. Grain size is measured but no tabulated data is available.
Stevens et al. (2022)

Ahklun-Mountains_USA
pi-HOL
Ages: uncertainty on individual 14-C dates not reported. No carbonates in general in loess of Muhs et al. (2003), while organic matter ranges between 0-7.50%, but mostly from 0.25-4.00% (for all the samples in all sections). Paper discusses loess as predominantly eolian. So, EC is taken between 0.96-0.9975: 0.98  0.01. Single data point. No grain size data.
Muhs et al. (2003a)

Kenai-2_USA
pi-HOL
Ages: uncertainty on individual 14-C dates not reported. No carbonates in general in loess of Muhs et al. (2003), while organic matter ranges between 0-7.50%, but mostly from 0.25-4.00% (for all the samples in all sections). Paper discusses loess as predominantly eolian. So, EC is taken between 0.96-0.9975: 0.98  0.01. Single data point. No grain size data.
Muhs et al. (2003a)

Kenai-1_USA
pi-HOL
Ages: uncertainty on individual 14-C dates not reported. No carbonates in general in loess of Muhs et al. (2003), while organic matter ranges between 0-7.50%, but mostly from 0.25-4.00% (for all the samples in all sections). Paper discusses loess as predominantly eolian. So, EC is taken between 0.96-0.9975: 0.98  0.01. Single data point. No grain size data.
Muhs et al. (2003a)

Hkberg_Sweden
pi-HOL
Not clear if age model uncertainty reported in supplementary info is 1 or 2sigma. Assumed 1sigma. Grain size is measured but no tabulated data is available.
Stevens et al. (2022)

Chitina_USA
pi-HOL
The <10-micron fraction was estimated from the <2 (100%) and 2-20 (50%) micron fractions.
Muhs et al. (2013a), Albani et al. (2015)

Matanuska-Valley_USA
pi-HOL
Ages: uncertainty on individual 14-C dates not reported. No carbonates in general in loess of Muhs et al. (2003), while organic matter ranges between 0-7.50%, but mostly from 0.25-4.00% (for all the samples in all sections). Paper discusses loess as predominantly eolian. So, EC is taken between 0.96-0.9975: 0.98  0.01. Single data point. Grain size assumed.
Muhs et al. (2003a)

St.-Michael-Island-Zagoskin-Lake_USA
pi-HOL
Density from close-by site where it was measured. Grain size from full size distribution.
Muhs et al. (2003b), Albani et al. (2015)

St.-Michael-Island-Puyuk-Lake_USA
pi-HOL
Ages: uncertainty on individual 14-C dates not reported. This is a lake sediment core. Single data point. Authors explicitly argue for a mostly aeolian origin. Particle size distribution is from a distribution curve. Error in depth assumed.
Muhs et al. (2003a)

Delta-Junction_USA
pi-HOL
No carbonates in general in loess of Muhs et al. (2003), while organic matter ranges between 0-7.50%, but mostly from 0.25-4.00% (for all the samples in all sections). Paper discusses loess as predominantly eolian. So, EC is taken between 0.96-0.9975: 0.98  0.01. Single data point. No grain size data.
Muhs et al. (2003a)

Shaw-Creek-Flats_USA
pi-HOL
No carbonates in general in loess of Muhs et al. (2003), while organic matter ranges between 0-7.50%, but mostly from 0.25-4.00% (for all the samples in all sections). Paper discusses loess as predominantly eolian. So, EC is taken between 0.96-0.9975: 0.98  0.01. Single data point. No grain size data.
Muhs et al. (2003a)

Nome_USA
pi-HOL
Ages: uncertainty on individual 14-C dates not reported. No carbonates in general in loess of Muhs et al. (2003), while organic matter ranges between 0-7.50%, but mostly from 0.25-4.00% (for all the samples in all sections). Paper discusses loess as predominantly eolian. So, EC is taken between 0.96-0.9975: 0.98  0.01. <10-micron fraction from full grain size distribution. Single data point.
Muhs et al. (2003a)

Halfway-House_USA
pi-HOL
No carbonates in general in loess of Muhs et al. (2003), while organic matter ranges between 0-7.50%, but mostly from 0.25-4.00% (for all the samples in all sections). Paper discusses loess as predominantly eolian. So, EC is taken between 0.96-0.9975: 0.98  0.01. <10-micron fraction from full grain size distribution. Multiple dates along profile, took profile section as reported.
Muhs et al. (2003a)

Chena_USA
pi-HOL
No carbonates in general in loess of Muhs et al. (2003), while organic matter ranges between 0-7.50%, but mostly from 0.25-4.00% (for all the samples in all sections). Paper discusses loess as predominantly eolian. So, EC is taken between 0.96-0.9975: 0.98  0.01. <10-micron fraction from full grain size distribution. Single data point.
Muhs et al. (2003a)

Fox/Goldstream_USA
pi-HOL
This is the average of two determinations. No carbonates in general in loess of Muhs et al. (2003), while organic matter ranges between 0-7.50%, but mostly from 0.25-4.00% (for all the samples in all sections). Paper discusses loess as predominantly eolian. So, EC is taken between 0.96-0.9975: 0.98  0.01. <10-micron fraction from full grain size distribution. Single data point.
Muhs et al. (2003a)

Chatanika-River_USA
pi-HOL
Ages: uncertainty on individual 14-C dates not reported. No carbonates in general in loess of Muhs et al. (2003), while organic matter ranges between 0-7.50%, but mostly from 0.25-4.00% (for all the samples in all sections). Paper discusses loess as predominantly eolian. So, EC is taken between 0.96-0.9975: 0.98  0.01. <10-micron fraction from full grain size distribution. 
Muhs et al. (2003a)

Slope-Mt.-Brooks-Range_USA
pi-HOL
Ages: uncertainty on individual 14-C dates not reported. No carbonates in general in loess of Muhs et al. (2003), while organic matter ranges between 0-7.50%, but mostly from 0.25-4.00% (for all the samples in all sections). Paper discusses loess as predominantly eolian. So, EC is taken between 0.96-0.9975: 0.98  0.01. Single data point. No grain size data.
Muhs et al. (2003a)

Sagwon_USA
pi-HOL
Ages: uncertainty on individual 14-C dates not reported. No carbonates in general in loess of Muhs et al. (2003), while organic matter ranges between 0-7.50%, but mostly from 0.25-4.00% (for all the samples in all sections). Paper discusses loess as predominantly eolian. So, EC is taken between 0.96-0.9975: 0.98  0.01. Two data points contiguous in age (but not in depth!). Size fraction is assumed.
Muhs et al. (2003a)

GISP2_Greenland
pi-HOL
The chronology and age errors are based on GICC05 (Vinther et al., 2006; Rasmussen et al., 2006, 2014; Seierstad et al., 2014). Error in depth from Albani et al. (2015). Grain size from close-by sites reported originally in Steffensen (1997). EC was then calculated based on the original data, but using the same method as in Albani et al. (2015): it is based on the d18O data and Ca2+ concentration. Depths with d18O < -40 per mil (cold periods) are assigned a Ca/dust = 0.095, while depths with d18O > -37 per mil a Ca/dust = 0.26 (Steffensen, 1997; Ruth et al., 2002), with a linear interpolation for in-between values of d18O. Uncertainty in EC is assumed 22.4%, which is the combination of 10% uncertainty due to possible volcanic inputs (as for Antarctic cores) and 20% due to a combination of analytical uncertainty and Ca proxy uncertainty (the latter based on Albani et al., 2015).
Steffensen (1997), Grootes and Stuiver (1997), Mayewksi et al. (1997), Stuiver and Grootes (2000), Ruth et al. (2002), Rasmussen et al. (2006), Vinther et al. (2006), Seierstad et al. (2014), Rasmussen et al. (2014), Albani et al. (2015)

NGRIP2_Greenland
pi-HOL
The chronology and age errors are based on GICC05 (Vinther et al., 2006; Rasmussen et al., 2006, 2014; Seierstad et al., 2014). Error in depth assumed equal to Holocene GISP2 from Albani et al. (2015). EC was calculated based on the original data, but using the same method as in Albani et al. (2015): it is based on the d18O data and Ca2+ concentration. Depths with d18O < -40 per mil (cold periods) are assigned a Ca/dust = 0.095, while depths with d18O > -37 per mil a Ca/dust = 0.26 (Steffensen, 1997; Ruth et al., 2002), with a linear interpolation for in-between values of d18O. Uncertainty in EC is assumed 22.4%, which is the combination of 10% uncertainty due to possible volcanic inputs (as for Antarctic cores) and 20% due to a combination of analytical uncertainty and Ca proxy uncertainty (the latter based on Albani et al., 2015 for Holocene GISP2).
Steffensen (1997), Ruth et al. (2002), Bigler (2004), NGRIP members (2004), Rasmussen et al. (2006), Vinther et al. (2006), Seierstad et al. (2014), Rasmussen et al. (2014), Albani et al. (2015)

Vostok_Antarctica
LGM
Ages: Extended Glaciological Timescale (EGT). Age error is one standard deviation of the three chronologies reported (Lorius, Sowers and EGT). Uncertainty in the depth is based on top and bottom depths for each sample reported in the Vostok site in Albani et al. (2015). EC is based on the concentration of insoluble particles in ice, assuming a density of insoluble particles of 2.5 g/cm3. The error on EC is due to a combination of uncertainties due to the density of insoluble particles (required to go from volume concentration measurements from the Coulter Counter to mass concentrations), the Coulter Counter measurements themselves, and a lack of a correction for volcanic contributions to total insoluble particles. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014).
Petit et al. (1999)

EDC_Antarctica
LGM
Ages: based on AICC2012 chronology. Age errors as reported in that chronology. EC based on Coulter Counter concentration, assuming insoluble particle density of 2.5 g/cm3. The error on EC is due to a combination of uncertainties due to the density of insoluble particles (required to go from volume concentration measurements from the Coulter Counter to mass concentrations), the Coulter Counter measurements themselves, and a lack of a correction for volcanic contributions to total insoluble particles. Grain size assumed equal to data from Albani et al. (2015) for the Holocene.
Delmonte et al. (2004), Veres et al. (2013), Delmonte et al. (2013)

PS75/059-2_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Age model is based on benthic foraminifera oxygen isotope records and on silicious and calcareous microfossils, with tuning against the EDC ice-core record (based on AICC2012). Dust DMAR is based on 230Th-normalized 232Th fluxes (recalculated from original paper to assume 14 ppm of 232Th in UCC). Focusing factor > 1.3 (=2.65). While this site is poleward of 50S, the influence of ice-drafter debris on lithogenic flux is thought to be small as evidenced from tight correlation of dust DMAR and n-alkane DMAR during both interglacials and glacials (n-alkanes is a proxy for continent-derived fluxes). No grain size data, nor on close-by sites. Site is farther downwind from dust sources than 2000 km.
Lamy et al. (2014)

SO136-038GC-6_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Age model based on 14C and oxygen isotope stratigraphy (Neil et al., 2004). Focusing factor <1.3 (=1.1). Dust flux based on 230Th-normalized 232Th flux (recalculated from considering 10 to 14 ppm of 232Th in UCC). N = 3. Grain size from close-by site. While this site is poleward of 50S, the authors argue that ice-drafted debris input was only significant during the deglaciation.
Neil et al. (2004), Durand et al. (2017)

Y9_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Age model based on 14C (Neil et al., 2004) and oxygen isotope stratigraphy (Durand et al., 2017). Focusing factor =0.8. Dust flux based on 230Th-normalized 232Th flux (recalculated from considering 10 to 14 ppm of 232Th in UCC). Grain size from close-by site.
Neil et al. (2004), Durand et al. (2017)

MD94-104_Indian-Ocean
LGM
Core MD 94-104 was correlated graphically to core MD 88-769, which is located in the same area and has age constraints from AMS 14C ages (Labeyrie et al., 1996; Lemoine, 1998). Focusing factor >1.3 (=14.72, Costa et al., 2020). EC based on 232Th. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. Grain size assumed.
Labeyrie et al. (1996), Lemoine (1998), Dezileau et al. (2000), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

MD88-769_Indian-Ocean
LGM
Age constraints from AMS 14C ages (Labeyrie et al., 1996; Lemoine, 1998). Considered the four samples within 19.0-26.5 ka BP. Focusing factor >1.3 (6.42, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Labeyrie et al. (1996), Lemoine (1998), Dezileau et al. (2000), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

MD88-770_Indian-Ocean
LGM
Age constraints from AMS 14C ages (Labeyrie et al., 1996; Lemoine, 1998). Considered the three samples within 19.0-26.5 ka BP. Focusing factor >1.3 (21.63, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Labeyrie et al. (1996); Lemoine (1998), Dezileau et al. (2000), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

PS75/100-4_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Age model based on 11 14C ages between 0-33 ka BP (Ronge et al., 2016, revised later by Ronge et al., 2021). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Focusing factor not calculated (Costa et al., 2020). Wu, Roberts et al. (2021) calculated dust MAR based on the chronology of the sediment core. The value they obtain is closer to that of Y9, which was obtained by 230Th-normalized 232Th flux. It is not clear what calculation to favor. Here, dust flux is calculated based on the data by Ronge et al. (2021), that is, using Th isotopes.
Ronge et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020), Ronge et al. (2021), Wu, Roberts et al. (2021)

MD07-3076Q_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). No focusing factor calculated. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Gottschalk et al. (2016), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

MD11-3357_Indian-Ocean
LGM
The age models for both sediment cores are based on graphical alignment of reconstructed sea surface temperatures (SST) with the EPICA Dome C (EDC) ?D record (Jouzel et al., 2007). Focusing factor >1.3 (9.24, Costa et al., 2020). Dust flux based on 230Th-normalized 232Th flux. Recalculated to consider 232Th in crust of 14 ppm. Grain size assumed.
Jouzel et al. (2007), Thle et al. (2019), Costa et al. (2020)

PS2498-1_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Ages: correlation of lithogenic flux to EDC dust flux. Assume 2cm-thick age samples. Bulk pelagic MAR was 230Th-normalized. Focusing factors are high (4.25, Costa et al., 2020). EC calculated based on 232Th (originally considered 10 ppm of 232Th in UCC, recalculated to 14 ppm). Grain size assumed.
Gersonde et al. (2003), Anderson et al. (2014), Costa et al. (2020)

Canterbury-Plains_New-Zealand
LGM
Ages: mean of four pIRIR OSL determinations. Density was assumed. Grain size was assumed. No TOC and carbonates estimates, assumed loessic.
Brezeanu et al. (2021)

MD94-102_Indian-Ocean
LGM
Age constraints from AMS 14C ages (Labeyrie et al., 1996; Lemoine, 1998). Considered the two samples within 19.0-26.5 ka BP. Focusing factor >1.3 (=2.9). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Labeyrie et al. (1996); Lemoine (1998), Dezileau et al. (2000), Kienast et al. (2016)

MtCass-E2a_New-Zealand
LGM
Ages: bayesian model based on 14C. Thickness error were assumed. Density was assumed as in close-by site (where it was also assumed). Grain size estimated visually from mean grain size. No report on TOC/carbonates: given the high amount of fossils and overall darkish look of the profile in a photo, EC = 0.94 is assumed. Two profiles were sampled, but MtCassE2a was chosen as given its position in the landscape it is less prone to slope processes and so more representative of eolian accumulation.
Almond et al. (2021)

TN057-06PC4_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Ages: correlation of delta-18O. Assume 2cm-thick samples. Bulk pelagic MAR was 230Th-normalized, and focusing factors are high (3.11, Costa et al., 2020). EC calculated based on 232Th (recalculated from a mean 232Th of 10 to one of 14 ppm in UCC). EC and 230Th fluxes not tabulated or plotted, so DMAR was taken from a figure and measured carefully using Illustrator.
Hodell et al. (2001), Anderson et al. (2014), Costa et al. (2020), van der Does et al. (2021)

TN057-21-PC2_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Ages: correlation of delta-18O. Assume 2cm-thick samples. Bulk pelagic MAR was 230Th-normalized, focusing factors are high (18.49, Costa et al., 2020). EC calculated based on 232Th (recalculated from a mean 232Th in UCC of 10 to one of 14 ppm). EC and 230Th fluxes not tabulated or plotted, so DMAR was taken from a figure and measured carefully using Illustrator. Grain size from close-by site.
Barker et al. (2009), Barker et al. (2010), Anderson et al. (2014)

DSDP-593_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Age model based on 14C (Neil et al., 2004; Durand et al., 2017) and oxygen isotope stratigraphy (Durand et al., 2017). Focusing factor >1.3 (=2.7). Dust flux based on 230Th-normalized 232Th flux (recalculated from assuming a mean 232Th in UCC of 10 to 14 ppm). Grain size assumed as in close-by site.
Neil et al. (2004), Durand et al. (2017)

E26-1_Tasman-Sea
LGM
Ages: model based on calibrated AMS 14C ages. Relative uncertainty equal to that of the discrete, calibrated AMS 14C that is closest in age. Assume sample thickness (for ages) is 2 cm. Only dust fluxes reported in paper, based on chronology. Grain size assumed equal to that of the Holocene section. EC was calculated by correcting for biogenic opal, carbonates and organic matter. The relative error on dust flux is assumed equal to the relative error of the Holocene section. This site is only 63 km from site DSDP 593, both at very similar water depths (910 mbsl vs. DSDP 593: 1068 mbsl). Dust flux for site DSDP 593 was calculated based on 230Th normalization. For this site it was found that the focusing factor is 2.7 during the LGM. Thus, it would be expected that a similar focusing factor existed for site E26.1.
Hesse (1994), Fitzsimmons et al. (2013)

Gorina_Argentina
LGM
Ages: bayesian model from OSL ages. Density, TOC and carbonates reported. Density was calculated based on TOC and grain size measurements. Grain size from full curve.
Torre et al. (2019), Coppo et al. (2022)

Tortugas-II_Argentina
LGM
Ages: bayesian model from OSL ages. Density, TOC and carbonates reported. Density was calculated based on TOC and grain size measurements. Grain size from full curve.
Torre et al. (2019), Coppo et al. (2022)

Lozada_Argentina
LGM
Ages: bayesian model from OSL ages. Density, TOC and carbonates reported. Density was calculated based on TOC and grain size measurements. Grain size from full curve.
Torre et al. (2019), Coppo et al. (2022)

GeoB3808-6_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Age model based on 14C dates. Focusing factor <1 (approx. 0.75). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Jonkers et al. (2015), Kienast et al. (2016)

Native-Companion-Lagoon_Australia
LGM
This is a coastal lagoon system, isolated from river discharge. It is an ephimerous system (it dries up occasionally). Ages are based on 14C dates, modeled using a polynomial. The uncertainty on ages is a quadrature of the reported relative error on the calibrated ages and a 2% component associated to the non-explained variance of the polynomial fit). EC was calculated by ashing samples, which takes into account organic matter. Biogenic opal was minimal based on other studies of similar samples in the area. Authigenic carbonates were not considered. They used trace element geochemistry to isolate the long-distance dust component from the local sediment component. This method is well supported by the paper. As EC was not tabulated, EC was fixed to give long-range DMAR (F. Lambert, pers. comm.). Grain size not measured. Given the distance to potential dust sources (1000-2000 km), as done for marine sediments, a 0.75 fraction is assumed).
McGowan et al. (2008), Petherick et al. (2009), F. Lambert (pers. comm.)

GeoB-1035_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (2.2, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

SO-14-08-05_Indian-Ocean
LGM
Ages: model based on calibrated AMS 14C ages. Relative uncertainty equal to that of the discrete, calibrated AMS 14C that is closest in age. Assume sample thickness (for ages) is 2 cm. Only dust fluxes reported in paper, based on chronology. Grain size assumed equal to that of the Holocene section. The relative error on dust flux is assumed equal to the relative error of the Holocene section. With respect to the FF correction, given that there is no close-by site with a calculated FF, the average LGM FF of Costa et al. (2020) is used. To account for the extra uncertainty of not having a calculated FF, an FF of double that of the LGM FF of Costa et al. (2020) is used to calculate the uncertainty.
Hesse and McTainsh (2003), Fitzsimmons et al. (2013)

TT154-10_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (4.32, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Broecker et al. (1988), Lao (1991), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

WIND-28K_Indian-Ocean
LGM
The age model for the core is derived from correlation of the benthic (C. wuellerstorfi) ?18O record to the orbitally tuned reference curve (SPECMAP) of Martinson et al. (1987) which it closely matches, and six AMS radiocarbon ages (McCave et al., 2005). Focusing factor >1.3 (5.98, Thomas et al., 2007). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, assuming 14 ppm of 232Th in dust. Samples used for calculation are WIND 28K 93-94. Grain size assumed. N = 1.
Martinson et al. (1987), McCave et al. (2005), Thomas et al. (2007)

V21-40_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (4.56, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Bradtmiller et al. (2006), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

TT013-MC34_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). No focusing factor calculated. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Anderson et al. (2006), Kienast et al. (2016)

VTR01-10GGC_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: linear model based on 14C ages. Assumed 2cm thick samples. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Focusing factor <1.3 (approx. = 1). Grain size assumed.
Thiagarajan and McManus (2019)

TR163-31P_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (=3.4). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Kienast et al. (2007), Kienast et al. (2016)

PLDS-7G_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: linear model based on 14C. Assumed 2cm thick samples. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Focusing factor >1.3 (approx. = 2.8). Grain size assumed.
Thiagarajan and McManus (2019)

RC24-12_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Ages: correlation based on delta-18O. Assume depth interval of samples of 2 cm. Focusing factor =2.83. EC calculated based on 232Th (recalculated from assuming 10 ppm to 14 ppm mean 232Th in UCC). As 230-Th normalized fluxes and EC not tabulated or shown in a figure, the mean dust flux was carefully measured from a figure in Illustrator. Grain size assumed equal to the assumption of Albani et al. (2015) for the Holocene.
Verardo and McIntyre (1994), Bradtmiller et al. (2007), Costa et al. (2020)

ODP138-848B-1H_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: based on delta-18O correlation. Bulk pelagic MAR based on 230Th. Focusing factor <1.3 (approx. 1.2). EC based on 232Th, recalculated to a mean 232Th in the crust of 14 ppm. Grain size assumed the same as assumed for the Holocene (Albani et al., 2015).
McGee et al. (2007)

V19-28_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (4.56, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Lyle et al. (1988), Lao (1991), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

TT013-PC18_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: delta-18O correlation. DMAR was measured from a figure using Illustrator. The 230Th normalization was performed, but focusing factors were not calculated. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Marcantonio et al. (1996), Anderson et al. (2006), Bradtmiller et al. (2006)

RC13-114_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (2.73, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

RC11-238_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (2.47, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Koutavas and Lynch-Stieglitz (2003), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

RC8-102_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: model based on AMS 14C dating of foraminifera. Used the 19.8 and 23.8 ka BP samples. Focusing factor >1.3 (=2.7). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Koutavas and Lynch-Stieglitz (2003), Singh et al. (2011), Kienast et al. (2016)

RC24-07_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Ages: correlation based on delta-18O. Assume depth interval of samples of 2 cm. Focusing factors were not calculated. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC calculated based on 232Th (recalculated to a mean crustal 232Th of 14 ppm). As 230-Th normalized fluxes and EC not tabulated or shown in a figure, the mean dust flux was carefully measured from a figure in Illustrator. Grain size assumed equal to the assumption of Albani et al. (2015) for the Holocene.
Verardo and McIntyre (1994), Bradtmiller et al. (2007)

MD97-2138_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: age model based on six 14C ages and the ?18O record of planktonic foraminifer G. ruber. Focusing factor >1.3 (=4.1). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Pichat et al. (2004)

V28-203_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor not calculated (Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Bradtmiller et al. (2006), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

V22-182_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Ages: 14C. Assume depth interval of samples of 2 cm. Focusing factor =1.31. EC calculated based on 232Th (originally assuming mean 232Th in crust of 10 ppm, recalculated here assuming 14 ppm). As 230-Th normalized fluxes and EC not tabulated or shown in a figure, the mean dust flux was carefully measured from a figure in Illustrator. Grain size assumed equal to the assumption of Albani et al. (2015) for the Holocene.
CLIMAP (1976), Mix and Ruddiman (1985), Bradtmiller et al. (2007), Costa et al. (2020)

KNR-73-3PC_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: linear model based on 14C. Assumed 2cm thick samples. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, assuming 14 ppm of 232Th in dust. Focusing factor <1.3 (approx. 1.15). Grain size assumed as in close-by site.
Thiagarajan and McManus (2019)

14MC-13BB_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Core chronologies were established with four radiocarbon dates on G. ruber: 0 cm and 8 cm depth in multicores, and two depths in the Big Bertha piston cores that bracketed the ?18O maximum inferred to represent Marine Isotope Stage 2, and with linear interpolation between dates. Ages: used the bottom four samples from the "LGP". Focusing factor <1.3 (1.16, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th (recalculated from 10.7 to 14 ppm mean 232Th in dust). Grain size assumed.
Costa et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

V30-40_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Ages: 14C. Assume depth interval of samples of 2 cm. Focusing factor =1.65. EC calculated based on 232Th (recalculated from 10 to 14 ppm mean 232Th in dust). As 230-Th normalized fluxes and EC not tabulated or shown in a figure, the mean dust flux was carefully measured from a figure in Illustrator. Grain size assumed equal to the assumption of Albani et al. (2015) for the Holocene.
CLIMAP (1976), Mix and Ruddiman (1985), Bradtmiller et al. (2007), Costa et al. (2020)

MV1014-02-17JC_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Preliminary age model based on ten radiocarbon dates on N. dutertrei between 0 and 500?cm depth in core, ?18O tie points at oxygen-isotope stage (MIS) boundaries, and the Los Chocoyos ash (84?kyr) at 853?cm core depth. Focusing factors <4 (but values not shown: assumed to be 3.9). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th flux, assuming dust has 11 ppm 232Th (based on the authors, then recalculated to 14 ppm). Grain size assumed.
Loveley et al. (2017), Costa et al. (2020)

MW91-9-GGC48_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: 14C + delta 18-O. Used two samples for calculations. Focusing factor >1.3 (2.81, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Bradtmiller et al. (2006), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

ME0005-24JC_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (5.5). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Kienast et al. (2007), Kienast et al. (2016)

Y69-71_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: Kienast et al. (2016) mentions two samples used for the LGM calculation: assume those two samples have ages 19.67 and 21.95 ka BP (Kienast et al., 2007). Focusing factor >1.3 (3.6). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Kienast et al. (2007), Kienast et al. (2016)

TT013-PC72_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: 14C combined with delta-18O correlation. Bulk pelagic MAR based on 230Th. Sediment focusing <1.3 (1.26, Costa et al., 2020). EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed equal to that of the Holocene section (Albani et al., 2015).
Anderson et al. (2006), Costa et al. (2020)

ODP138-849A-1H_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: based on delta-18O correlation. Bulk pelagic MAR based on 230Th. Focusing factor is 1.8. EC based on 232Th (recalculated from a mean 232Th of 10.7 to 14 ppm). Grain size assumed (Albani et al., 2015).
McGee et al. (2007)

ODP806_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: based on delta-18O correlation. Bottom and top ages correspond exactly with 23 and 19 ka BP. Focusing factor <1 (0.91, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Berger et al. (1994), Winckler et al. (2008), Costa et al. (2020)

MC1208-17PC_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: delta-18O correlation and 14C. Focusing factor <1.3 (1.05, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th (recalculated from 10.7 ppm of 232Th in original paper to 14 ppm). Grain size assumed.
Jacobel et al. (2017), Costa et al. (2020)

TR163-22_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Age model based on high-resolution (~0.5 to 1ka) planktonic ?18O records and 3 radiocarbon dates on N. dutertrei. Used the two LGM samples from Singh et al. (2011). Focusing factor =3.7. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Lea et al. (2006), Singh et al. (2011), Kienast et al. (2016)

RC24-01_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Ages: correlation based on delta-18O. Assume depth interval of samples of 2 cm. Focusing factors were not calculated. EC calculated based on 232Th and recalculated from assuming 10 ppm to 14 ppm in mean 232Th of dust. As 230-Th normalized fluxes and EC not tabulated or shown in a figure, the mean dust flux was carefully measured from a figure in Illustrator. Grain size assumed equal to the assumption of Albani et al. (2015) for the Holocene.
Verardo and McIntyre (1994), Bradtmiller et al. (2007), Costa et al. (2020)

V28-238_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (2.16, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Lao (1991), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

21MC_20BB_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Core chronologies were established with four radiocarbon dates on G. ruber: 0 cm and 8 cm depth in multicores, and two depths in the Big Bertha piston cores that bracketed the ?18O maximum inferred to represent Marine Isotope Stage 2, and with linear interpolation between dates. Ages: based on 14C and delta O-18 correlation. Used the bottom five samples for the LGM. Focusing factor >1.3 (1.39, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, recalculated using 14 ppm rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Costa et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

ODP138-850A-1H_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: based on delta-18O correlation. Bulk pelagic MAR based on 230Th. Focusing factor is <1.3 (approx. 1.3). EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed equal as that assumed for the Holocene section (Albani et al., 2015).
McGee et al. (2007)

RC17-177_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: based on delta-18O correlation. Latitude: there are contradicting values between papers. The one from Winckler et al. (2008) is used. Used samples RC17-177-4 and 5 (Winckler et al., 2008) . Focusing factor >1.3 (2.18, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, assuming 14 ppm in mean 232Th for dust. Grain size assumed.
Le and Shackleton (1992), Winckler et al. (2008), Costa et al. (2020)

RC11-210_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (1.34, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Lao (1991), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

KNR73-4PC_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: linear model based on 14C. Assumed 2cm thick samples. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, assuming 14 ppm of 232Th in dust.. Focusing factor >1.3 (=1.88). Grain size assumed.
Thiagarajan and McManus (2019), Costa et al. (2020)

RC13-189_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Ages: 14C. Assume depth interval of samples of 2 cm. Focusing factor =2.15. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC calculated based on 232Th. As 230-Th normalized fluxes and EC not tabulated or shown in a figure, the mean dust flux was carefully measured from a figure in Illustrator, recalculated to assume 14 rather than 10 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed equal to the assumption of Albani et al. (2015) for the Holocene.
CLIMAP (1976), Mix and Ruddiman (1985), Bradtmiller et al. (2007), Costa et al. (2020)

TT013-MC97_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor not calculated (Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

TR163-19P_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (4.46, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

EN066-29GGC_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Ages: based on delta-18O correlation, with linear interpolation between tie-points. MAR calculation was based on 230Th fluxes, not chronology. Focusing factor > 1.3 (=1.82). A correction for post-depositional sediment focusing/lateral transport was performed: the reported value is the average of that which implies no correction, and that with the greatest reduction performed (in this case: 36.5%). EC was estimated based on carbonate measurements. Opal was negligible. No data on organic content though. Grain size assumed.
Francois et al. (1990), Ratmeyer et al. (1999), Albani et al. (2015)

26MC-25BB_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Core chronologies were established with four radiocarbon dates on G. ruber: 0 cm and 8 cm depth in multicores, and two depths in the Big Bertha piston cores that bracketed the ?18O maximum inferred to represent Marine Isotope Stage 2, and with linear interpolation between dates. Used the three bottom LGM samples from Costa et al. (2006). Focusing factor =0.71. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, recalculated by using a mean 232Th in dust of 14 rather than 10.7 ppm. Grain size assumed.
Costa et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

P7_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: 14C. Calculated based on five samples from Yang et al. (1995). There is a 2.4x discrepancy with the value reported in Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor not calculated (Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Pedersen et al. (1988), Yang et al. (1995), Costa et al. (2020)

ODP138-851E-1H_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: based on delta-18O correlation. Bulk pelagic MAR based on 230Th. Focusing factor is <1.3 (approx. 1.2). EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed equal as that assumed for the Holocene section (Albani et al., 2015).
McGee et al. (2007)

RC13-140_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: 14C. Used the bottom three samples. Focusing factor >1.3 (4.24, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Bradtmiller et al. (2006), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

29MC-28BB_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Core chronologies were established with four radiocarbon dates on G. ruber: 0 cm and 8 cm depth in multicores, and two depths in the Big Bertha piston cores that bracketed the ?18O maximum inferred to represent Marine Isotope Stage 2, and with linear interpolation between dates. Used all five LGM samples. Focusing factor <1.3 (=1.09). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Costa et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

Y69-106P_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: 14C and delta-18O correlation. Used the two LGM samples. Focusing factor =0.7. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Pisias and Mix (1997), Singh et al. (2011), Kienast et al. (2016)

EN066-21GGC_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Ages: based on delta-18O correlation, with linear interpolation between tie-points. MAR calculation was based on 230Th fluxes, not chronology. No post-depositional sediment focusing/lateral transport according to authors (focusing factor = 0.95). EC was estimated based on carbonate measurements. Opal was negligible. No data on organic content though. Grain size assumed.
Francois et al. (1990), Ratmeyer et al. (1999), Albani et al. (2015)

MC1208-31BB_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: delta-18O correlation and 14C. Focusing factor =0.78 (Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Jacobel et al. (2017), Costa et al. (2020)

EN066-38GGC_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Ages: based on delta-18O correlation, with linear interpolation between tie-points. MAR calculation was based on 230Th fluxes, not chronology. No post-depositional sediment focusing/lateral transport according to authors (focusing factor = 0.99). EC was estimated based on carbonate measurements. Opal was negligible. No data on organic content though. Grain size assumed.
Francois et al. (1990), Ratmeyer et al. (1999), Albani et al. (2015)

TT013-MC112_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor not calculated. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

33MC_32BB_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: based on delta-18O correlation and 14C. Used the bottom five LGM samples from Costa et al. (2016). Focusing factor = 1.3. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Costa et al. (2016)

ODP138-852A-1H_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: based on delta-18O correlation. Bulk pelagic MAR based on 230Th. Focusing factor is <1.3 (approx. =1.3). EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed equal as that assumed for the Holocene section (Albani et al., 2015).
McGee et al. (2007)

VM20-234_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Age model: based on 14C. Focusing factor >1.3 (2.566, Costa et al., 2020). Dust flux based on 230Th-normalized 232Th flux. The content of 232Th in dust used is 13.7 in the original study, but here it was recalculated assuming 14 ppm. Grain size assumed.
Williams et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

39MC-36BB_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Core chronologies were established with four radiocarbon dates on G. ruber: 0 cm and 8 cm depth in multicores, and two depths in the Big Bertha piston cores that bracketed the ?18O maximum inferred to represent Marine Isotope Stage 2, and with linear interpolation between dates. Used all five LGM samples from Costa et al. (2016). Focusing factor <1.3 (1.23, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Costa et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

ML1208-37BB_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: delta-18O correlation and 14C. Focusing =0.98 (Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed.
Jacobel et al. (2017), Costa et al. (2020)

ODP138-853B-1H_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: based on delta-18O correlation. Bulk pelagic MAR based on 230Th. Focusing factor is =0.9. EC based on 232Th, recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 232Th in dust. Grain size assumed equal as that assumed for the Holocene section (Albani et al., 2015).
McGee et al. (2007)

KL15_Gulf-of-Aden
LGM
Single point. Focusing factor >1.3 (approx. 2.3). Dust flux based on 230Th-normalized 232Th flux, recalculated by assuming a mean 232Th content in dust of 14 rather than 10.7 ppm. Grain size assumed.
Palchan and Torfstein (2019)

74KL, Arabian Sea
LGM
Ages: 14C and delta-O18 correlation. Used two LGM samples from Marcantonio et al. (2001). Focusing factor not calculated (Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed as in close-by site.
Sirocko et al. (1993), Marcantonio et al. (2001), Costa et al. (2020)

RC27-42_Arabian-Sea
LGM
Ages: combination of 14C ages and correlation of delta-18O. Assume sample thickness is 2 cm. Bulk pelagic MAR is 230Th-normalized, and the focusing factor is 1.8 (Costa et al., 2020). EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed equal to a Holocene site determined based on the mean of the grain size distribution (Albani et al., 2014). DMAR was measured from a figure in the paper using Illustrator. DMAR was recalculated by assuming 14 rather than 10.7 ppm of 23Th in dust.
Clemens and Prell (1990), Clemens et al. (1998), Pourmand et al. (2007), Costa et al. (2020)

MD03-2705_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Ages: 14C. A total of 15 LGM samples were used for the calculation. Focusing factor >1.3 (2.98, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size from near-by site ODP 658 (Tiedemann et al., 1989): estimated visually from 0-2-um (100%) and 6-63-um fraction (7%), plus 100% of the remaining 2-6-um fraction.
Tiedemann et al. (1989), Jullien et al. (2007), Meckler et al. (2013), Costa et al. (2020)

KL11_Red-Sea
LGM
Single point. Focusing factor <1.3 (1.25). Dust flux based on 230Th-normalized 232Th flux, recalculated by assuming a mean 232Th content in dust of 14 rather than 10.7 ppm. Grain size assumed.
Palchan and Torfstein (2019)

OCE437-07-GC68_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
The two bottom samples were used for the calculations. Focusing factor >1.3 (approx. 3). The grain size for the Holocene section, as calculated by Albani et al. (2015), was used. This is because, while grain size data is available from the original study, grain size measurements are from the bulk detrital fraction (eolian plus non-eolian components). Total sediment flux based on 230Th normalization. EC is based on grain-size modelling and concentration of opal, organic carbon and carbonate contents.
McGee et al. (2013), Albani et al. (2015)

OC437-07-GC49_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Ages: 14C. 5% relative error assumed (no error tabulated). Depth error assumed. The bulk pelagic MAR was derived from 230Th. Focusing factor >1.3 (approx. 3.1). EC is the terrigenous component (after removal of opal, organic C and carbonates) that corresponds to dust (grain size end-member modeling). Grain size based on full distribution for the Holocene section.
McGee et al. (2013), Albani et al. (2015)

KL23_Red-Sea
LGM
Single point. Focusing factor =0.75. Dust flux based on 230Th-normalized 232Th flux, recalculated by assuming a mean 232Th content in dust of 14 rather than 10.7 ppm. Grain size assumed.
Palchan and Torfstein (2019)

12JPC_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (27.83, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

OC437-07-GC27_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Dust MAR was carefully measured in Illustrator from a figure in the paper. Focusing factor >1.3 (approx. 5). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on correcting for organic matter, opal and carbonates, including isolation of dust from riverine inputs. Grain size based on full distribution of the Holocene section.
McGee et al. (2013), Albani et al. (2015)

Ramat-Beka_Israel
LGM
Ages: OSL. Depth uncertainty assumed. Carbonates reported (all carbonates were assumed pedogenic), not TOC (unit is loess). Grain size fraction from close-by site.
Crouvi et al. (2008)

Natchez_USA
LGM
Ages: 14-C. Grain size from distribution, explicitly assumes all aeolian, does not discuss fluvial component. Average of two points with contiguous ages, with MARs calculated based on base of deeper section and top of shallower one.
Bettis III et al. (2003)

M45/5-KL90_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor not calculated (Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

Vicksburg_USA
LGM
Grain size from distribution, assumes all aeolian, does not discuss fluvial component. Four contiguous age brackets considered together.
Bettis III et al. (2003)

Shankerpora_India
LGM
Coordinates approximate as not reported in study. Density assumed. Depth error assumed. Neither TOC nor carbonates are reported, not possible to decide if loess or soil: assumed EC = 0.96. Grain size assumed.
Meenakshi et al. (2018)

Zhouqu_China
LGM
Ages: bayesian model based on OSL and AMS 14C ages, measured in Illustrator. Assumed envelope was 2-sigma. Density measured. No TOC/carbonates reported, loess. Grain size estimated from mean value visually.
Yang et al. (2021)

Liujiapo-1/Duanjiapo-Lantian-2_China
LGM
Ages: based on MS. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014). Average of two sites (see supporting calculations).
Sun et al. (2000)

Weinan_China
LGM
Ages: age-depth model based on Fourier Transform and quartz OSL ages. Uncertainty on ages was based on the uncertainty of the individual ages, as the model did not have uncertainty. Thickness was carefully measured on a Figure using Illustrator. No TOC/carbonates reported, section is loess. Grain size from nearby site (Liujiapo_1/Duanjiapo (Lantian_2), China).
Kang et al. (2013, 2015)

West-Helena_USA
LGM
Ages: 14-C. Grain size taken from close-by site with measured values (Phillips Bayou: full distribution available), explicitly assumes all aeolian, does not discuss fluvial component. One data point.
Bettis III et al. (2003)

Yaoxian-I_China
LGM
Ages: OSL ages. No carbonates or TOC, layer is loess. Density assumed. Grain size taken from close-by site (Xunyi, China).
Dong et al. (2015)

Xunyi_China
LGM
Ages: age-depth model based on Fourier Transform and quartz OSL ages. Uncertainty on ages was based on the uncertainty of the individual ages, as the model did not have uncertainty. Thickness was carefully measured on a Figure using Illustrator. Density was assumed by the authors. No TOC/carbonates reported, section is loess. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full distribution.
Stevens et al. (2008), Kang et al. (2015)

V32-126_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (1.78). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Lao (1991), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

Xifeng-II_China
LGM
Ages: OSL. Density from close-by site. Grain size from close-by site (Xifeng, China). No TOC and carbonates estimates (L1). MAR was estimated from sedimentation rate reported in study.
Stevens et al. (2006)

Yuanpu-Yuanbo_China
LGM
Ages based on MS. Grain size from full distribution.
Sun et al. (2000)

Yuanbao_China
LGM
Ages: age-depth model based on Fourier Transform and quartz OSL ages. Uncertainty on ages was based on the uncertainty of the individual ages, as the model did not have uncertainty. Thickness was carefully measured on a Figure using Illustrator. Density was assumed by the authors. No TOC/carbonates reported. No sections reported. I assume them with EC = 0.98. Grain size assumed.
Lai and Wintle (2006), Lai et al. (2007), Kang et al. (2015)

Xifeng_China
LGM
Authors already calculared MARs error, also BD is measured. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full distribution.
Stevens et al., (2016)

Heimugou-1/Luochuan_China
LGM
This is an average of two determinations. Determination I: Ages: MS. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014). Determination II: Ages: age-depth model based on Fourier Transform and quartz OSL ages. Uncertainty on ages was based on the uncertainty of the individual ages, as the model did not have uncertainty. Thickness was carefully measured on a Figure using Illustrator. Density was assumed by the authors. No TOC/carbonates reported, section is loess. Grain size assumed. Depth error assumed. Grain size based on determination I: full distribution.
An et al. (1991), Sun et al. (2000), Lu et al. (2013), Kang et al. (2015)

Gaolanshan_China
LGM
Ages: MS. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full distribution.
Sun et al. (2000)

Beiyuantou_China
LGM
Ages: MS. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full distribution.
Sun et al. (1995), Sun et al. (2000)

Majiayuan_China
LGM
Ages: MS. Grain size from close-by site: Beiyuantou.
Sun et al. (1995, 2000)

Jingyuan-II_China
LGM
Ages: OSL (model was not tabulated). Density assumed. No TOC/carbonate report. Grain size assumed.
Sun et al. (2012)

Jingyuan_China
LGM
Ages: age-depth model based on Fourier Transform and quartz OSL ages. Uncertainty on ages was based on the uncertainty of the individual ages, as the model did not have uncertainty. Thickness was carefully measured on a Figure using Illustrator. Error on diameter of sampler assumed. Density was assumed by the authors. No TOC/carbonates reported. No sections reported. I assume them with EC = 0.98. Grain size is measured in the original paper, but no data tabulated such that the <10 fraction can be calculated, so it was assumed.
Sun et al. (2010), Kang et al. (2015)

Beiguoyuan_China
LGM
Ages: OSL. Used interval between sample CH04/1/21 and CH04/1/72. There are no MARs calculation. No grain size data, assumed from near-by site (Xifeng, China).
Stevens et al. (2008)

V32-128_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (1.49). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Thompson (1981), Lao (1991), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

Zhongjiacai_China
LGM
Ages: age-depth model based on Fourier Transform and quartz OSL ages. Uncertainty on ages was based on the uncertainty of the individual ages, as the model did not have uncertainty. Thickness was carefully measured on a Figure using Illustrator. Density was assumed by the authors. No TOC/carbonates reported, section looks loessic. Grain size based on <2 (100%) and 2-63 (13%) fractions (measured on Illustrator).
Buylaert et al. (2008), Kang et al. (2015)

Neka_Iran
LGM
Ages: IRSL. Depth error and density assumed. Carbonates reported, not TOC, from description mostly loess. Grain size from clay (100%) and silt (13%) bins.
Frechen et al. (2009)

Shaozhuang_China
LGM
Ages: bayesian model based on quartz OSL ages. Tabulated data for age model not available, so used Illustrator. Age uncertainty in figure assumed 2sigma. Density assumed. Error on depth assumed. Neither TOC nor carbonates reported; profile section is L (loess). Grain size estimated visually from mean.
Zhao, Peng et al. (2022)

Toshan_Iran
LGM
Ages: 4-11-micron polymineral pIRIR290. Depth error, density and grain size assumed. No TOC/carbonate data, by profile it looks mostly loess (some paleosoils).
Lauer et al. (2017)

Xueyuan_China
LGM
Ages: MS. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014): full distribution.
Sun et al. (1995, 2000)

Kalat-e Naderi a_Iran
LGM
Ages: polymineral fine-grained IRSL. Depth uncertainty and density assumed. Carbonates reported in general for the section, TOC not reported: looks completely loessic. Grain size estimated from clay (100%) and silt (13%) contents.
Karimi et al. (2011)

Now-Deh_Iran
LGM
Ages: IRSL. Depth error and density assumed. Carbonates reported, not TOC, from completely loess. Grain size from clay (100%) and silt (13%) bins.
Frechen et al. (2009)

Gulang_China
LGM
Ages: age-depth model based on Fourier Transform and quartz OSL ages. Uncertainty on ages was based on the uncertainty of the individual ages, as the model did not have uncertainty. Thickness was carefully measured on a Figure using Illustrator. Erro on diameter of sampler assumed. Density was assumed by the authors. No TOC/carbonates reported. No sections reported. I assume them with EC = 0.98. Grain size is measured in the original paper, but no data tabulated such that the <10 fraction can be calculated, so it was assumed.
Sun et al. (2012), Kang et al. (2015)

V21-146_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: delta-18O correlation. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. Focusing factor is 3.79. EC based on 232Th. Grain size based on median value.
Hovan et al. (1991), Lao et al. (1992), Costa et al. (2020)

XZP_China
LGM
Ages: model based on OSL. Density assumed. Grain size estimated visually from 0-2-micron (100%) and 2-63-micron (8/61 %) fractions. TOC/carbonates not reported: organic rich.
Miao et al. (2022)

Lingezhuang, China
LGM
Ages: bayesian model based on quartz and FK OSL. Not tabulated: used Adobe Illustrator. Density assumed. Based on picture and description it is loess, but no organics/carbonates reported. Grain size based on clay (<2 microns: 100%) and silt (2-63 microns: 13%) fractions.
Yi et al. (2022)

Caijiagou_China
LGM
Ages based on TL dating. Grain-size from closely located sites which have full size distributions. Density is assumed in original work.
Sun et al. (2000)

Hoalin_Tajikistan
LGM
Ages: bayesian based on fine-grained quartz OSL. Model error not reported. Depth error assumed. Density measured. Grain size estimated visually from mean grain size. Neither TOC nor carbonates reported: described as loess.
Wang et al. (2018)

Darai-Kalon_Tajikistan
LGM
Calculated MAR between samples DRK201 and DRK211, using the four reported OSL ages (mean). Density was assumed. Thickness was carefully measured from a figure in the original paper (using Illustrator). EC was calculated based on carbonate content. Organic matter not reported. Grain size was estimated visually as <2 micron (100%) + 2-6.3 micron (100%) + 6.3-20 micron (25%).
Frechen and Dodonov (1998)

Canteen-Creek_USA
LGM
Ages: 14-C. Grain size from distribution, explicitly assumes all aeolian, does not discuss fluvial component. Single data point passes criteria (of three). Basal age assumed.
Bettis III et al. (2003)

Core-G39_USA
LGM
Ages: 14-C. Grain size from distribution, explicitly assumes all aeolian, does not discuss fluvial component. Single data point.
Bettis III et al. (2003)

Keller-Farm_USA
LGM
Ages: 14-C. Grain size from distribution, explicitly assumes all aeolian, does not discuss fluvial component. Average of seven points with contiguous ages, with MARs calculated based on base of deeper section and top of shallower one.
Bettis III et al. (2003)

RC14-105_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (3.6). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Rea and Leinen (1988), Lao (1991), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

SU90-03_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (2.69). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Chapman et al. (2000), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

McCook_USA
LGM
Ages: 14-C. Grain size not reported, taken as average of Devil's Den, Eustis and Bignell Hill (as reported in Albani 2014's compilation), error is standard deviation of those three values.
Pigati et al. (2013)

Eustis_USA
LGM
Grain size from distribution, explicitly assumes all aeolian, does not discuss fluvial component. Single data point considered (study had two that checked criteria for LGM, but one was with OSL ages, the other with less trustworthy TL ages).
Bettis III et al. (2003), Roberts et al. (2003)

Hummeston_USA
LGM
Grain size from distribution, explicitly assumes all aeolian, does not discuss fluvial component. Single data point. Basal age is from age model (probably from 14-C ages, but not clear), but age model not shown, relative error of basal age = relative error of top age. Relative error of top age assumed 3.4%.
Bettis III et al. (2003)

Bignell-Hill_USA
LGM
Ages: OSL. Grain size from distribution, explicitly assumes all aeolian, does not discuss fluvial component. Single data point.
Bettis III et al. (2003), Roberts et al. (2003)

Bellevue_USA
LGM
Grain size from distribution, explicitly assumes all aeolian, does not discuss fluvial component. Two contiguous age brackets considered. Basal age is assumed from regional maximum 14-C age of Peoria loess, so a higher uncertainty is assigned to it (as there are no in situ absolute ages with which to constrain the base of the loess at this site): assume 6x the relative error of 14-C ages (3.4% x 6 = 20.4%). Top age: 14-C.
Bettis III et al. (2003)

Panama/Bentley_USA
LGM
Grain size from distribution, explicitly assumes all aeolian, does not discuss fluvial component. Two data points with continuous ages, with MAR calculated based on base of deeper profile section and top of shallower one. Basal age is from age model, but age model not shown, relative error of basal age = relative error of top age. Top age: 14-C.
Bettis III et al. (2003)

W8709A-1_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (2.15). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Lao (1991), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

Loveland_USA
LGM
Grain size based on several 0-2, 2-20 measurements... the 2-20 fraction was divided by two to approximate <10. The authors report an age model... error on MAR is based on 1sigma of reported MARs every 0.5 ka from 19 to 26.5.
Muhs et al. (2013b)

Rapids-City_USA
LGM
Density is based on measurement of unaltered loess in other close-by localities. Studies assumed eolian accumulation is dominant. They report carbonates but assume they are not post-depositional. No report on organic matter concentration. <10-micron fraction from grain size distribution curve from close-by locations (Morrison, USA).
Muhs et al. (2001, 2018)

Morrison_USA
LGM
Ages: 14-C. Density is based on measurement of unaltered loess in other close-by localities. Studies assumed eolian accumulation is dominant. They report carbonates but assume they are not post-depositional. No report on organic matter concentration. <10-micron fraction from grain size distribution curve.
Pigati et al. (2015), Muhs et al. (2018)

Dunlap_USA
LGM
Grain size from distribution, explicitly assumes all aeolian, does not discuss fluvial component. Single data point. Basal age is from age model, but age model not shown, relative error of basal age = relative error of top age (which was measured by 14-C).
Bettis III et al. (2003)

Crawford_USA
LGM
Grain size from distribution, explicitly assumes all aeolian, does not discuss fluvial component. Single data point. Basal age is from age model, but age model not shown, relative error of basal age = relative error of top age (which was measured by 14-C).
Bettis III et al. (2003)

Salt-Creek_USA
LGM
Grain size from distribution, explicitly assumes all aeolian, does not discuss fluvial component. One data point.
Bettis III et al. (2003)

Zhaosu-Boma_China
LGM
Ages: bayesian model based on quartz OSL ages: the model is not tabulated, so used the figure and careful measurements in Illustrator. Density and its uncertainty is assumed by the authors. Neither carbonates nor TOC is reported, and layer is described as loessic. Grain size estimated from mean grain size, and visually estimated from a figure, from a close-by site.
Song et al. (2018), Kang et al. (2022)

ZS_China
LGM
Ages: bayesian model based on quartz OSL ages: the model is not tabulated, so used the figure and careful measurements in Illustrator. Density and its uncertainty is assumed by the authors. Neither carbonates nor TOC is reported. Grain size estimated from mean gran size, and visually estimated from a figure.
Kang et al. (2022)

SU90-08_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (2.14). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Grousset et al. (1993), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

SU90-09_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor not calculated. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Grousset et al. (1993), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

Valikhanov_Kazakhstan
LGM
Ages: 14C. Density assumed. Both TOC and carbonates measured. Grain size estimated visually from mean value.
Feng et al. (2011)

Remizovka_Kazakhstan
LGM
Ages: post-IRIRSL290 on polymineral fine-grained material (OSL). Density assumed. Grain size based on full distribution curve. Carbonates reported, not TOC.
Fitzsimmons et al. (2018), Schulte et al. (2018)

M45/5-KL86_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor not calculated. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

TLD_China
LGM
Ages: bayesian model based on quartz OSL ages: the model is not tabulated, so used the figure and careful measurements in Illustrator. Density from close-by site. Neither carbonates nor TOC is reported. Grain size estimated from mean gran size, and visually estimated from a figure.
Kang et al. (2022)

XY17_China
LGM
Ages: bayesian model based on FK OSL ages: the model is not tabulated, so used the figure and careful measurements in Illustrator. Density from close-by site. Carbonates reported, not TOC. Grain size from near-by site (TLD, China): estimated from mean gran size, and visually estimated from a figure.
Li et al. (2020), Kang et al. (2022)

XEB_China
LGM
Ages: bayesian model based on quartz OSL ages: the model is not tabulated, so used the figure and careful measurements in Illustrator. Density from close-by site. Neither carbonates nor TOC is reported. Grain size estimated from mean gran size, and visually estimated from a figure.
Kang et al. (2022)

Xiaoerbulake_China
LGM
Ages: discrete OSL ages, reported uncertainty assumed 1sigma. Density from close-by site. No TOC/carbonates measured, layer is mostly loess. Grain size from mean size, estimated from figure.
Li et al. (2016)

KS15-05_China
LGM
Ages: bayesian model based on FK OSL ages: the model is not tabulated, so used the figure and careful measurements in Illustrator. Density measured. Neither carbonates nor TOC reported. Grain size estimated from mean gran size, and visually estimated from a figure.
Wang et al. (2019), Kang et al. (2022)

Zeketai_China
LGM
Ages: age-depth model based on quartz OSL dating: modeled ages not tabulated, so careful measurements on the model plot in Illustrator were performed. Density from close-by site. Carbonate content measured (not TOC): layer is loessic. Grain size from close-by site (KS15-05, China), estimated visually from a mean grain size plot.
E et al. (2012)

Nilka_China
LGM
Ages: quartz OSL. Density from close-by site. Neither TOC nor carbonates reported, no unit descriptions, but from photograph does not look dark. Grain size assumed.
Song et al. (2015)

SU90-11_Atlantic-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor not calculated. SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Labeyrie et al. (1996), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

Borehole-OT-1_Russia
LGM
Age: quartz/feldspar OSL, linear model. Density is assumed. EC estimated from LOI950, which is plotted but not tabulated (estimated visually). Grain size is estimated visually from plot: full size distribution.
Sychev et al. (2022)

Kisiljevo_Serbia
LGM
They used two modeling approaches to calculating MARs. I used their MAR values between 19-26 (by visual inspection and by careful measurments using Adobe Illustrator, since no data was tabulated: their Table S1 is not online) to calculate an average and a standard deviation for each model (the relative error of the second model was assumed equal to the first), and then calculated the mean of both models (and propagated errors). No grain size information provided. Grain size assumed.
Peric et al. (2022a)

Nosak_Serbia
LGM
They modeled MARs including uncertainty. Grain size assumed.
Peric et al. (2020)

Irig_Serbia
LGM
They modeled MARs including uncertainty. The <10-micron fraction was estimated as 100% of the <2-micron fraction + 13.1% of the 2-63 fraction.
Peric et al. (2022b)

Surduk-2_Serbia
LGM
Ages: OSL. Grain size not reported. Value was assumed.
Fenn et al. (2020)

Stari-Slankamen_Serbia
LGM
They modeled MARs including uncertainty. Grain size from close-by sites (Katymr brickyard, Hungary).
Murray et al. (2014), Peric et al. (2022b)

Veliki-Surduk_Serbia
LGM
They used two modeling approaches to calculating MARs. I used their reported MAR values between 19-26.5 in Table S4 to calculate an average and a standard deviation for each model, and then calculated the mean of both models (and propagated errors). Grain size assumed.
Peric et al. (2019)

Crvenka_Serbia
LGM
Ages: OSL. They used two age models. Here, I used the combined age model. Relative error on ages are those of the closest measured ages. Grain size is measured but not reported as a table or as any other retrievable way.
Stevens et al. (2011)

Huangshan_China
LGM
Ages: MS (no tie point between 19-26.5), had to carefully measure depths from figure using illustrator. Samples for MS taken every 10 cm. Density assumed. TOC measured, but not carbonates. Grain size based on mean of full profile and defined as <4 micron + 0.5 * 4-16 micron.
Wu et al. (2021)

Primorskoje_Ukraine
LGM
Ages: thermoluminescence. Latitude and longitude are approximate. Age uncertainty not reported. Density not reported. No close-by sites available for density info. No grain size info available, took it from Albani et al. (2014).
Gozhik et al. (1995)

Katymr-brickyard_Hungary
LGM
Ages: 14-C. EC was calculated extracting the average organic and carbonate contents in the profile. The <10-micron fraction was calculated by summing the <2 micron fraction and half of the 2-20 fraction.
Smegi et al. (2019)

Madaras-brickyard_Hungary
LGM
Ages: 14-C. Density assumed equal to close-by site. Carbonate and total organic contents not reported, neither EC. But nearby site had info to calculate EC values. Used the same values, with double the uncertainty to account for the fact that it was not measured at this site. Grain size data as in close-by site (Katymr brickyard, Hungary, with added 10% uncertainty).
Smegi et al. (2020)

Dunaszekcso_Hungary
LGM
Ages: 14-C. They assume EC = 0.98. No report on post-depositional carbonates/organic matter.
Ujvri et al. (2017)

Semlac_Romania
LGM
Ages are based on correlation of magnetic susceptibility to benthic foraminifera isotope records. Density not reported, assumed equal to that of near-by site (big error as in that site as well). Carbonate and total organic matter content not reported.
Zeeden et al. (2016)

Szeged-Othalom-I_Hungary
LGM
Ages: 14-C. Ujvri et al. (2010) assume EC = 0.98. Grain size from close-by sites (Katymr brickyard, Hungary).
Smegi et al. (2007), Ujvri et al. (2010)

V20-122_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor <1.3 (1.22, Costa et al., 2020). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Rea and Leinen (1988), Lao (1991), Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

Chumbur-Kosa_Russia
LGM
Age: MS, model not tabulated, calculated depths by careful measurements based on figure using Illustrator. Grain size was estimated visually, based on <5 micron (100%) + 1/3 of 5-20 microns.
Chen et al. (2018b)

Albertirsa_Hungary
LGM
Ages: OSL. Used samples HCB15 and HCB12. No uncertainty reported for the density. This is a loess sample with no reworking: assume mostly eolian. No report on post-depositional carbonates and organic matter. Grain size not reported in study, took it from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution. Reported MAR value is not trustworthy (use calculated one... it coincides with Albani et al. (2014)).
Novothny et al. (2002)

Mende_Hungary
LGM
Used samples Men13 and the one at 4.7 meters. No uncertainty reported for the density. This is a loess sample with no reworking: assume mostly eolian. No report on post-depositional carbonates and organic matter. Grain size not reported in study, took it from Albani et al. (2014): full size distribution. Use calculated value.
Wintle and Packman (1988), P!ecsi (1991), Frechen et al. (1997)

Debrecen-Alfldi-brickyard_Hungary
LGM
Ages: 14-C. Ujvri et al. (2010) assume EC = 0.98. Grain size from close-by sites (Katymr brickyard, Hungary).
Smegi et al. (2007), Ujvri et al. (2010)

Willendorf-II_Austria
LGM
Used samples GrN-21898, GrN-22208, GrA-5005, GrA-5006, GrN-20768, GrA-1016, GrN-17803 and GrA-895. No uncertainty reported for the density. This is a loess sample with no reworking: assume mostly eolian. No report on post-depositional carbonates and organic matter. Grain size not reported in study, nor on Albani et al. (2014). Took the closest study in Frechen et al. (2003): Doln Vestonice.
Damblon et al. (1996)

Mitoc-Malu-Galben_Romania
LGM
Ages: 14-C. Latitude and longitude are approximate. Min age taken from sample GrN-13765, while max age from sample GrA-1354. Grain size not available, taken from nearby site. Density information not available, even from close-by sites. Assume a value and 30% uncertainty.
Haesaerts et al. (2003)

BCCPT_Hungary
LGM
Ujvri et al. (2010) assume EC = 1. Five sites were considered for this MAR (too close to each other to consider individually): Bodrogkeresztr brickyard I + Csorgkt I + Csorgkt II + Tokaj Kereszt Hill I + Patk quarry. Grain size from close-by sites (Katymr brickyard, Hungary).
Smegi et al. (2007), Ujvri et al. (2010)

Achenheim_France
LGM
Ages: thermoluminescence. Used samples with lab numbers 2 and 3. No uncertainty reported for the density. This is a loess sample with no reworking: assume mostly eolian. No report on post-depositional carbonates and organic matter. Grain size not reported in study, took it from Albani et al. (2014).
Rousseau et al. (1998)

Molodova-V_Ukraine
LGM
Ages: 14-C. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014). Density information not available, even from close-by sites. Assume a value and 30% uncertainty. I used sample GrA-22904 for the min age, and samples GrN-23577 and GrA-9435 for the max age.
Haesaerts et al. (2003)

Doln-Vestonice_Czech-Republic
LGM
Ages: TL + IRSL. Used samples DV8 and DV14. No uncertainty reported for the density. This is a loess sample with no reworking: assume mostly eolian. No report on post-depositional carbonates and organic matter. Grain size not reported in study, took it from Albani et al. (2014).
Damblon et al. (1996), Frechen et al. (1999)

Bnningheim_Germany
LGM
Ages: TL + IRSL. Used samples B21 (Bnningheim A) and B27 (Bnningheim B). No uncertainty reported for the density. This is a loess sample with no reworking: assume mostly eolian. No report on post-depositional carbonates and organic matter. Grain size not reported in study, took it from Albani et al. (2014).
Frechen (1999)

Halyc_Ukraine
LGM
Ages: TL. Grain size from Albani et al. (2014). Density information not available, even from close-by sites. Assume a value and 30% uncertainty. The min age is an average of two ages obtained for the same level.
Lanczont and Madeyska (2005)

Bckingen_Germany
LGM
Ages: TL + IRSL. Used samples BK35 and BK42. The reported value is extremely high compared to calculation. No uncertainty reported for the density. This is a loess sample with no reworking: assume mostly eolian. No report on post-depositional carbonates and organic matter. Grain size not reported in study, took it from Albani et al. (2014).
Frechen (1999)

Nussloch_Germany
LGM
Ages: 14-C. Used samples GifA-96221 and GifA-99020. No uncertainty reported for the density. This is a loess sample with no reworking: assume mostly eolian. No report on post-depositional carbonates and organic matter. Grain size not reported in study, took it from Albani et al. (2014).
Lang et al. (2003)

RNDB-PC-13_Pacific-Ocean
LGM
Ages: LGM dataset from Kienast et al. (2016). Focusing factor >1.3 (2.96). SBMAR based on 230Th normalization. EC based on 232Th. Grain size assumed.
Kienast et al. (2016), Costa et al. (2020)

Lowland-Point_UK
LGM
Ages: post IR-IRSL. Depth error assumed. Density and grain size from close-by site (Remicourt, Belgium). Neither carbonates nor TOC reported: layers look halfway between soil and loess. This is a student's thesis.
Trnqvist (2022)

Remicourt_Belgium
LGM
Used samples REM31 (IRSL dating) and REM26 (TL dating). No uncertainty reported for the density. This is a loess sample with no reworking: assume mostly eolian. No report on post-depositional carbonates and organic matter. Grain size not reported in study, used value from Albani et al. (2014).
Frechen et al. (2003)

Rocourt_Belgium
LGM
Ages: thermoluminescence. Used the two deepest samples. No uncertainty reported for the density. This is a loess sample with no reworking: assume mostly eolian. No report on post-depositional carbonates and organic matter. Grain size not reported in study, took it from Albani et al. (2014).
Wintle (1987)

Romont-East_Belgium
LGM
I used their polymineral OSL ages, considered them from younger to older and discarded the sample with the first inversion in the most probable age, and those at deeper positions than that. Density not reported: taken from close-by sites. Carbonate content is between 10-20% (no tabulated data reported). Used 15% carbonate content as mean. No organic content measurements reported. Grain size is measured, but values are not reported in tabulated form: used data from close-by site (Rocourt, Belgium).
Zens et al. (2018)

Pegwell-Bay_UK
LGM
Not clear if age model uncertainty reported in supplementary info is 1 or 2sigma. I contacted the corresponding author: it is basically 2sigma. Density not measured, but explicitly assumed in the original study a given value. Use that value. Since no close-by sites are available with density data, assign 30% uncertainty. No info on carbonate content or TOC.
Stevens et al. (2020)

Lihkvin_Russia
LGM
OSL ages on Q were used. Density not reported. TOC is reported (very small), but not carbonate. The <10 micron fraction was estimated as the <2 fraction + one sixth of the 2-63 micron fraction.
Panin et al. (2021)

Lozhok_Russia
LGM
Ages: based on modelling of OSL ages. Modeled ages were based on careful measurement in a Figure on Illustrator (no tabulated data in paper). Uncertainty in ages in the Figure assumed to be 1sigma. Density assumed as was in turn assumed in a close-by site. This is a loess layer. TOC is reported (2.5% in average), but not carbonates. Grain size assumed.
Volvakh et al. (2022)

Iskitim_Russia
LGM
Ages: 14-C. No age errors reported. Density assumed as in close-by site. Grain size assumed.
Chlachula (2003)

St.-Michael-Island-Zagoskin-Lake_USA
LGM
Ages: 14-C. This is not loess (maar lake instead). The values of MARs are not reported numerically (only on a table). Since EC were not reported, we fixed EC so that it gives a MAR value coinciding with a visual inspection of a figure showing the MAR values.
Muhs et al. (2003b), Albani et al. (2015)

Halfway-House_USA
LGM
Ages: 10-Be. No carbonates in general in loess of Muhs et al. (2003), while organic matter ranges between 0-7.50%, but mostly from 0.25-4.00% (for all the samples in all sections). Paper discusses loess as predominantly eolian. So, EC is taken between 0.96-0.9975: 0.98  0.01. <10-micron fraction from full grain size distribution. Multiple dates. This MAR value for the age bracket I used was not reported in the original study. Instead, they reported a MAR for an age bracket within the deglaciation.
Muhs et al. (2003a)

Egg-Lake_USA
LGM
Ages: 14-C. No carbonates in general in loess of Muhs et al. (2003), while organic matter ranges between 0-7.50%, but mostly from 0.25-4.00% (for all the samples in all sections). Paper discusses loess as predominantly eolian. So, EC is taken between 0.96-0.9975: 0.98  0.01. <10-micron fraction from full grain size distribution. Single MAR value.
Muhs et al. (2003a)

GISP2_Greenland
LGM
The chronology and age errors are based on GICC05 (Andersen et al., 2006; Svensson et al., 2006; Rasmussen et al., 2014; Seierstad et al., 2014). Error in depth assumed as for the Holocene (from Albani et al., 2015). Grain size from close-by sites reported originally in Steffensen (1997). EC was calculated based on the same procedure as for the Holocene. Uncertainty in EC as for the Holocene.
Steffensen (1997), Mayewksi et al. (1997), Andersen et al. (2006), Svensson et al. (2006), Seierstad et al. (2014), Rasmussen et al. (2014), Albani et al. (2015)

NGRIP2_Greenland
LGM
The chronology and age errors are based on GICC05 (Andersen et al., 2006; Svensson et al., 2006; Rasmussen et al., 2014; Seierstad et al., 2014). Error in depth assumed equal to Holocene GISP2 from Albani et al. (2015). EC was calculated based on the original data, but using the same method as in Albani et al. (2015): it is based on the d18O data and Ca2+ concentration. Depths with d18O < -40 per mil (cold periods) are assigned a Ca/dust = 0.095, while depths with d18O > -37 per mil a Ca/dust = 0.26 (Steffensen, 1997; Ruth et al., 2002), with a linear interpolation for in-between values of d18O. Uncertainty in EC is assumed 22.4%, which is the combination of 10% uncertainty due to possible volcanic inputs (as for Antarctic cores) and 20% due to a combination of analytical uncertainty and Ca proxy uncertainty (the latter based on Albani et al., 2015 for Holocene GISP2).
Steffensen (1997), Ruth et al. (2002), Bigler (2004), NGRIP members (2004), Rasmussen et al. (2006), Vinther et al. (2006), Seierstad et al. (2014), Rasmussen et al. (2014), Albani et al. (2015)