Physical and Geochemical Characterization of Mineral Dust Samples Collected by the DUST^2 Project and Precursors, 2011&ndash;2025

Munroe, Jeffrey S.; Fernandez, Diego P.

doi:10.5194/essd-2026-423

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-423

Preprints

13 Jul 2026

| 13 Jul 2026

Status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal ESSD.

Physical and Geochemical Characterization of Mineral Dust Samples Collected by the DUST^2 Project and Precursors, 2011–2025

Jeffrey S. Munroe and Diego P. Fernandez

Abstract. Mineral dust is a key component of Earth’s Critical Zone, transporting minerals, nutrients, and trace elements across regions and linking distant components of the lithosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere, yet quantitative understanding of these connections is limited by the availability of spatially distributed, well-characterized datasets. Here, we present a multi-year dataset of mineral dust samples collected as part of the DUST^2 Critical Zone Thematic Cluster and precursor projects using a network of 20 passive dust collectors deployed across a source-to-sink transect from arid dust-emitting regions of the Great Basin to downwind mountain environments in Utah, Nevada, and Idaho. The dataset includes measurements of major and trace element concentrations, CIELAB colour parameters, and grain size distributions, together with metadata describing sampling protocols, site characteristics, temporal coverage, and analytical methods. Consistent sampling and analytical procedures enable direct comparison across sites and years, supporting evaluation of spatial patterns in dust properties, and temporal variability associated with hydroclimatic forcing and land-surface change. This dataset is designed to support a wide range of applications, including dust source apportionment, evaluation of atmospheric transport and deposition models, and assessment of atmospheric contributions to soil development, nutrient cycling, and water quality in downwind ecosystems. By providing a standardized, openly accessible record of dust composition across a well-constrained source-to-sink system, this contribution enhances data availability for studies of aeolian processes and Critical Zone dynamics and provides a transferable framework for investigating dust-driven connectivity in other regions experiencing expanding dust emissions.

Received: 01 Jun 2026 – Discussion started: 13 Jul 2026

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Jeffrey S. Munroe and Diego P. Fernandez

Status: open (until 27 Aug 2026)

Post a comment Subscribe to comment alert

RC1:
'Comment on essd-2026-423', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Jul 2026 reply
This work describes a dataset summarizing the physical and geochemical measurements of mineral dust samples collected using passive samplers in mountain environments across the Intermountain West of the United States. The methodology is explained extensively, but it would still be helpful to include more information on the dust source areas affecting the study sites and to expand the discussion of the temporal and spatial variability of dust properties.
My specific comments are as follows:
General:
It would be helpful to add a description of the dust source areas affecting the mineral dust deposition fluxes observed in the study area.

Is the time resolution sufficient to assess temporal trends? I was wondering about this, as temporal variability is not discussed in the manuscript.

The spatial variability is only briefly described (Lines 315–338). It would be helpful to expand this discussion.

Specific comments:
Lines 160–165: Sieving down to <63 µm does not exclude the possibility that part of the fine fraction originates from the surrounding soils. Was it possible to analyse the chemical signature of the fine fraction of the surrounding soils and compare it with that of the collected dust?

Lines 196–198: Would it be possible to provide the elemental recoveries obtained for the reference materials that were analysed?

Line 248: Why is the deposition flux so high for the DUST10 collector?

Line 289: I understood that particles >63 µm were removed during sieving, which explains why they are rare. Is the low abundance of the clay fraction (<2 µm) also influenced by the sample preparation method, for example by the use of water during rinsing or other preparation steps?

Reply
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-423-RC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC1', Jeffrey Munroe, 01 Aug 2026 reply
  We appreciate this feedback and these questions from the reviewer and appreciate their time reading through our submitted manuscript. They raise several points to which we will respond individually.
  
  General:
  It would be helpful to add a description of the dust source areas affecting the mineral dust deposition fluxes observed in the study area.
  
  We agree it would be great to have this information, but unfortunately, little is known about specific source areas contributing to the specific collector locations. In fact, that might be the wrong way to look at it: with individual samples spanning anywhere from a few months to more than a year, it is unlikely that any single dust source contributed entirely to the resulting dust sample. Rather, each sample is a composite of many unknown sources. With that uncertainty and complexity, it seems prudent to steer clear of attempts to describe the geochemical properties of potential dust source areas. Nonetheless, an identification of possible sources (based on radiogenic isotope fingerprinting) was presented in the Munroe et al. (2019) paper that we reference in Line 78.
  
  Is the time resolution sufficient to assess temporal trends? I was wondering about this, as temporal variability is not discussed in the manuscript.
  
  Another good question that is difficult to answer. The original collectors in the network were deployed more than 10 years ago, but many of them have only been out for ~5 years. That seems too short a time to look for robust temporal trends. Nonetheless, correlations between dust deposition rates and regional aridity are presented in the Munroe (2022) paper we reference in Line 63).
  
  The spatial variability is only briefly described (Lines 315–338). It would be helpful to expand this discussion.
  
  In keeping with the goals of ESSD review manuscripts, which say that “Any interpretation of data is outside the scope of regular articles” we have resisted going too far into interpretation of the dataset we present. The short discussion of spatial variability that we included (along with Figure 11) is intended to demonstrate how the dataset could be used to investigate spatial patterns in the data; it is not intended to be a definitive exploration of this topic, as that would be at odds with the journal scope.
  
  Specific comments:
  Lines 160–165: Sieving down to <63 µm does not exclude the possibility that part of the fine fraction originates from the surrounding soils. Was it possible to analyse the chemical signature of the fine fraction of the surrounding soils and compare it with that of the collected dust?
  
  This is a good point – in a perfect world, the collectors might have been deployed in positions off the ground, but that was not possible due to permitting restrictions. Nonetheless, geochemical comparison of the dust and local soil was the focus of the Munroe et al. (2022) paper we reference in Line 79, as well as the Munroe papers referenced in Line 86.
  
  Lines 196–198: Would it be possible to provide the elemental recoveries obtained for the reference materials that were analysed?
  
  Unfortunately, this is not possible because this information was not reported by all the laboratories involved in analyzing dust samples during the long duration of the project.
  
  Line 248: Why is the deposition flux so high for the DUST10 collector?
  
  It is certainly an outlier, likely due to the location of this collector in the most urban setting of the entire collector network.
  
  Line 289: I understood that particles >63 µm were removed during sieving, which explains why they are rare. Is the low abundance of the clay fraction (<2 µm) also influenced by the sample preparation method, for example by the use of water during rinsing or other preparation steps?
  
  As noted in section 3.2, dust samples were concentrated from the distilled water by repeated centrifugation. Care was taken when pouring off the supernatant to ensure that no material was lost; if the water was still cloudy after centrifuging (i.e. if very fine material was still in suspension) the sample was centrifuged further to make sure that all fine particles were settled to the bottom before any water was poured off.
  
  Reply
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-423-AC1

Jeffrey S. Munroe and Diego P. Fernandez

Data sets

Data from the DUST^2 Project, Collectors DUST-1 through DUST-17, winter 2020-21 and summer 2021 Jeffrey S. Munroe https://doi.org/10.26022/IEDA/112309

Dust Deposition in the Uinta Mountains, 2011-2021 Jeffrey S. Munroe https://doi.org/10.26022/IEDA/112285

Data from the DUST^2 Project, Collectors DUST-1 through DUST-18, winter 2021-22 and summer 2022 Jeffrey S. Munroe https://doi.org/10.26022/IEDA/113001

Data from the DUST^2 Project, collectors DUST-1 through DUST-18, Fall 2022 to Fall 2023 Jeffrey S. Munroe https://doi.org/10.60520/IEDA/113846

Data from the DUST^2 Project, collectors DUST-1 through DUST-19, Fall 2023 to Fall 2024, and collectors DUST-19 through DUST-20, Fall 2022 to Fall 2024 Jeffrey S. Munroe https://doi.org/10.60520/IEDA/113847

Jeffrey S. Munroe and Diego P. Fernandez

Viewed

Total article views: 119 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
97	15	7	119	12	9

HTML: 97
PDF: 15
XML: 7
Total: 119
BibTeX: 12
EndNote: 9

Views and downloads (calculated since 13 Jul 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2026	96	13	7	116
Aug 2026	1	2	0	3

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 13 Jul 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2026	96	13	7	116
Aug 2026	1	2	0	3

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 95 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 95 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 02 Aug 2026

Short summary

Dust from dry landscapes can travel far, carrying minerals and trace elements into mountains, soils, streams, and ecosystems. We collected dust for more than a decade at 20 sites across Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, then measured its amount, color, grain size, and chemistry. The open dataset shows that dust varies strongly across places and years, and provides a foundation for tracing dust sources and understanding how wind-blown material affects water, soils, and the environment downwind.


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