<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">GMD</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Geoscientific Model Development</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">GMD</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Geosci. Model Dev.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1991-9603</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/gmd-12-3835-2019</article-id><title-group><article-title>Improved methodologies for Earth system modelling of atmospheric soluble iron and observation comparisons using the Mechanism of Intermediate
complexity for Modelling Iron (MIMI v1.0)</article-title><alt-title>Mechanism of Intermediate complexity for Modelling Iron (MIMI v1.0)</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Mechanism of Intermediate complexity for Modelling Iron (MIMI v1.0)}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{D. S. Hamilton et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Hamilton</surname><given-names>Douglas S.</given-names></name>
          <email>dsh224@cornell.edu</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8171-5723</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Scanza</surname><given-names>Rachel A.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Feng</surname><given-names>Yan</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6464-0785</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Guinness</surname><given-names>Joseph</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Kok</surname><given-names>Jasper F.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0464-8325</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>Longlei</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff6">
          <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>Xiaohong</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff7">
          <name><surname>Rathod</surname><given-names>Sagar D.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Wan</surname><given-names>Jessica S.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff6">
          <name><surname>Wu</surname><given-names>Mingxuan</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2970-1102</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Mahowald</surname><given-names>Natalie M.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Department of Earth and Atmospheric Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Environmental Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Department of Statistics and Data Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff7"><label>7</label><institution>Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Douglas S. Hamilton (dsh224@cornell.edu)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>2</day><month>September</month><year>2019</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>12</volume>
      <issue>9</issue>
      <fpage>3835</fpage><lpage>3862</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>28</day><month>March</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>6</day><month>May</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>29</day><month>July</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>30</day><month>July</month><year>2019</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2019 Douglas S. Hamilton et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2019</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3835/2019/gmd-12-3835-2019.html">This article is available from https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3835/2019/gmd-12-3835-2019.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3835/2019/gmd-12-3835-2019.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3835/2019/gmd-12-3835-2019.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e213">Herein, we present a description of the Mechanism of Intermediate
complexity for Modelling Iron (MIMI v1.0). This iron processing module was
developed for use within Earth system models and has been updated within a
modal aerosol framework from the original implementation in a bulk aerosol
model. MIMI simulates the emission and atmospheric processing of two main
sources of iron in aerosol prior to deposition: mineral dust and combustion
processes. Atmospheric dissolution of insoluble to soluble iron is
parameterized by an acidic interstitial aerosol reaction and a separate
in-cloud aerosol reaction scheme based on observations of enhanced aerosol
iron solubility in the presence of oxalate. Updates include a more
comprehensive treatment of combustion iron emissions, improvements to the
iron dissolution scheme, and an improved physical dust mobilization scheme.
An extensive dataset consisting predominantly of cruise-based observations
was compiled to compare to the model. The annual mean modelled concentration
of surface-level total iron compared well with observations but less so in
the soluble fraction (iron solubility) for which observations are much more
variable in space and time. Comparing model and observational data is
sensitive to the definition of the average as well as the temporal and spatial
range over which it is calculated. Through statistical analysis and
examples, we show that a median or log-normal distribution is preferred when
comparing with soluble iron observations. The iron solubility
calculated at each model time step versus that calculated based on a ratio
of the monthly mean values, which is routinely presented in aerosol studies
and used in ocean biogeochemistry models, is on average globally one-third
(34 %) higher. We redefined ocean deposition regions based on dominant
iron emission sources and found that the daily variability in soluble iron
simulated by MIMI was larger than that of previous model simulations. MIMI
simulated a general increase in soluble iron deposition to Southern
Hemisphere oceans by a factor of 2 to 4 compared with the previous
version, which has implications for our understanding of the ocean
biogeochemistry of these predominantly iron-limited ocean regions.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e225">Iron is an essential micronutrient for ocean primary productivity
(Martin et al., 1991; Martin, 1990). Iron deficiency in
oceans leads to high-nutrient low-chlorophyll (HNLC) conditions under which
the photosynthetic productivity of phytoplankton is iron limited
(Boyd et al., 2007; Jickells et al.,
2005), and in other regions iron may be an important<?pagebreak page3836?> nutrient for nitrogen
fixation by diazotrophs (Capone
et al., 1997; Moore et al., 2013, 2006). Atmospheric deposition of
bioavailable iron (i.e. the fraction of the total iron deposited that is
readily available for ocean biota uptake) contained in aerosol is an
important source of new iron for the remote open ocean (Duce and Tindale, 1991; Fung et al., 2000); therefore,
iron impacts the ability of oceans to act as a sink of atmospheric carbon
dioxide (Jickells
et al., 2014; Moore et al., 2013).</p>
      <p id="d1e228">Several definitions for bioavailable iron have been proposed. The solubility
of iron is considered to be a key factor modulating its bioavailability (Baker et al., 2006a, b);
therefore, we consider bioavailable iron to be dissolved (labile) iron
in either a (II) or (III) oxidation state, and we define this as the soluble
iron concentration throughout the paper. However, since most aerosol
iron is insoluble at emission the processing of insoluble iron to a soluble
form must occur during atmospheric transport. The acidic processing of iron
contained in aerosol is one pathway through which soluble iron can be
liberated from an insoluble form with decreasing pH (Duce and Tindale, 1991; Solmon et al., 2009;
Zhu et al., 1997). Organic ligands, in particular oxalate, also increase
iron solubility by weakening or cleaving the Fe–O bonds found in iron oxide
minerals via complexation (Li et al.,
2018; Panias et al., 1996), and in nature this reaction proceeds most
rapidly in a slightly acidic aqueous medium, such as cloud droplets (Cornell
and Schindler, 1987; Paris et al., 2011; Xu and Gao, 2008). Organic ligand
processing has been estimated to increase soluble iron concentrations by up
to 75 % more than is achievable with acid processing alone (Ito,
2015; Johnson and Meskhidze, 2013; Myriokefalitakis et al., 2015; Scanza et
al., 2018). However, there is no single mechanism that describes the
observed inverse relationship of higher iron solubilities with decreasing
iron concentrations (Sholkovitz et
al., 2012). Rather, Mahowald et al. (2018) used a 1-D
plume model to demonstrate that the observed trend can be explained by
either the differences in iron solubility at emission or the atmospheric
dissolution of insoluble iron. Thus, there is no observational constraint to
indicate which is more likely unless spatial distribution is also
considered.</p>
      <p id="d1e231">The recent increase in efforts to model iron solubility (Ito,
2015; Ito and Xu, 2014; Johnson and Meskhidze, 2013; Luo et al., 2008;
Meskhidze et al., 2005; Myriokefalitakis et al., 2015; Scanza et al., 2018)
reflects its importance for understanding biogeochemical cycles (Andreae and
Crutzen, 1997; Arimoto, 2001; Jickells et al., 2005; Mahowald, 2011) and how
human activity may be perturbing them (Mahowald et al., 2009, 2017). However,
the multifaceted nature of how iron interacts within the Earth system
results in many uncertainties regarding how to best represent the
atmospheric iron cycle within models, which are themselves of varying
complexity (Myriokefalitakis
et al., 2018). To incorporate the processes currently thought to be the most
significant (Journet
et al., 2008; Meskhidze et al., 2005; Paris et al., 2011; Shi et al., 2012)
and improve model-to-observation comparisons of the soluble iron fraction,
particularly in remote ocean regions (Baker
et al., 2006b; Ito, 2015; Mahowald et al., 2018; Matsui et al., 2018;
Sholkovitz et al., 2012), model development has been focused on refining the
atmospheric iron emission sources and subsequent atmospheric processing (Ito,
2015; Ito and Xu, 2014; Johnson and Meskhidze, 2013; Luo et al., 2008;
Meskhidze et al., 2005; Myriokefalitakis et al., 2015; Scanza et al., 2018).</p>
      <p id="d1e234">A recent multi-model evaluation of four global atmospheric iron cycle models (Myriokefalitakis
et al., 2018) showed that total iron deposition is overrepresented close to
major dust source regions and underrepresented in remote regions compared
with observations from all four models. This is consistent with previous
model intercomparison studies that demonstrated the difficulty of
simultaneously simulating both atmospheric concentrations and deposition
fluxes of desert dust (Huneeus et al., 2011).
Importantly, none of the atmospheric iron processing models can capture the
high (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %) solubilities measured over the Southern Ocean;
this is potentially because the model processes associated with transport
and ageing of aerosol iron require further development (Ito
et al., 2019). Conclusions from Myriokefalitakis et al. suggest that future
model improvements should focus on a more realistic aerosol size
distribution and the representation of mineral-to-combustion sources of
iron. Most of the development of the Mechanism of Intermediate complexity
for Modelling Iron (MIMI), as described herein, focused on these points.
First, we transitioned from a bulk aerosol scheme to a two-moment modal
aerosol scheme (Liu
et al., 2012), and second, we re-evaluated pyrogenic iron emissions from
anthropogenic combustion and fires. The modal aerosol scheme was used to
calculate both aerosol mass and number at each time step within an updated
global aerosol microphysics model, and both the fire and anthropogenic
combustion emissions from Luo et al. (2008), which are
likely to be underestimated (Conway et
al., 2019; Ito et al., 2019; Matsui et al., 2018), were improved upon.</p>
      <p id="d1e248">Ocean observations of iron and its soluble fraction are limited both
spatially and temporally owing to the significant costs and logistical
constraints associated with accumulating data from scientific cruises. Thus,
there is an inherent disparity in attempting to compare climatological means
calculated from temporally chronological model results with observational
means calculated from temporally limited and sporadic observations (e.g.
Mahowald et al., 2008, 2009). This is important because natural aerosol
emissions are variable on seasonal, annual, and decadal timescales in
terms of both primary natural iron emission sources (mineral dust and wildfires)
and the source of aerosol acidity. For example, sulfuric acid from the
oxidation of dimethyl sulfide and fire <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Bates et al., 1992; Chin and Jacob,
1996) has been observed to aid iron dissolution when far from anthropogenic
acid sources (Zhuang et al.,
1992). The limitations associated with the collection of continuous annual or
inter-annual<?pagebreak page3837?> ship-based data across multiple remote ocean regions are
immutable at present, which hinders the required derivation of the basic
statistical properties of such highly variable data (Smith et al., 2017). Attention could
therefore be given to the methodologies with which such model–observation
comparisons are undertaken instead.</p>
      <p id="d1e262">The paper is presented in four parts. The first part (Sect. 2) introduces updates made to the Bulk Aerosol Module (BAM) iron scheme of
Scanza et al. (2018) and its implementation
within the Modal Aerosol Module (MAM), with four modes (MAM4), within the
Community Earth System Model (CESM). In the second part (Sect. 3), we
compare iron concentrations and the fractional solubility of iron with the
observational data. Then the third part (Sect. 4) compares our updated
version of the model with its predecessor. Finally, we suggest further
developments for atmospheric iron modelling and for comparing model results
with sporadic observations (Sect. 5).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Aerosol model</title>
      <p id="d1e273">The present study improves upon the previous atmospheric iron cycle module
developed for the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM) version 4 (CAM4) embedded
in the CESM; we will refer to this version as BAM-Fe (Scanza
et al., 2015, 2018) herein. We incorporated the iron module within the MAM
framework (Liu
et al., 2012, 2016) currently in the Department of Energy's Energy Exascale
Earth System Model (E3SM; Golaz et al., 2019) and the CAM
versions 5 and 6 (CESM-CAM5–6; Neale et al., 2010);
we refer to this new version of the iron model by its name (MIMI) herein.
Table 1 serves as a reference and summarizes the modifications made for MIMI,
which are discussed throughout the paper.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e279">Short summary of major differences between BAM-Fe and MIMI.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="2">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="justify" colwidth="199.169291pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="justify" colwidth="199.169291pt"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">BAM-Fe (CAM4)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">MIMI (CAM5)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Externally mixed bulk aerosol tracers with four size bins  (0.1–1.0, 1.0–2.5, 2.5–5.0, 5.0–10.0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Internally mixed two-moment aerosol tracers with three aerosol iron size modes  (Aitken, accumulation, coarse)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Static soil erodibility from offline maps:  DEAD  (Zender et al., 2003) scheme</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Time-varying soil erodibility calculated online:  Kok et al. (2014a) scheme</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Eight dust minerals, five of which are iron bearing</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">No change</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Static Luo et al. (2008) combustion iron emissions</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Static Luo et al. (2008) combustion iron emissions <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Static Luo et al. (2008) fire iron emissions</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Time-varying Fe : BC fire iron emission ratio</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Surface fire iron emissions</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Vertically distributed fire iron emissions</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Static aerosol pH across aerosol size bins</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Aerosol pH size dependent</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Assumed oxalate concentration based on primary organic carbon</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Assumed oxalate concentration based on secondary organic carbon</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">In-cloud aerosol concentrations based on simulated cloud fraction</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Separate in-cloud and interstitial aerosol tracers</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e408">Combustion iron aerosol size and number properties.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mode</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Number mode</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Geometric standard</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Volume mean particle</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Density, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">diameter, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">gn</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">deviation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">diameter, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">emit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Aitken</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.03<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.8<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.0504</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1500<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Accumulation</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.08<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.8<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.134</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1500<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Coarse</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.00<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.06</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2600<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e411"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">emit</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">gn</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>exp⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>ln⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Liu et al. (2012).
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Dentener et al. (2006) and Liu et al. (2012).
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Wang et al. (2015).</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e750">We use MAM4 with four simulated log-normal aerosol size modes: three modes
(Aitken, accumulation, and coarse) containing iron and a fourth primary
carbonaceous mode. Table 2 details the new pyrogenic iron (i.e. from fires
and anthropogenic combustion) modal aerosol properties, while those of
mineral dust iron follow existing dust aerosol properties (Liu
et al., 2012). Generally, the modelled density of iron is similar to
size-resolved ambient aerosol densities measured in eastern China (Hu et al., 2012), which
has significant dust and combustion aerosol sources. MIMI was initially
implemented and tested within a development branch of CAM 5.3, as per Wu et
al. (2017, 2018), using
Cheyenne (Computational and Information Systems Laboratory,
2017) and closely resembles CESM version 1.2.2. We used a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.9</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> horizonal (longitude by latitude) resolution and 56 vertical
layers up to 2 hPa. Stratiform microphysics followed a two-moment cloud
microphysics scheme (Gettelman
et al., 2010; Morrison and Gettelman, 2008). The other major aerosol species
black carbon (BC), organic carbon, sea salt, and sulfate (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) were
also simulated but are not explicitly examined here because we are focused
on iron aerosol modelling. However, atmospheric iron processing in MIMI
requires both sulfate and (secondary) organic aerosols to be simulated as
they act as proxies for the reactant species of [<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>] and oxalate,
respectively. In CAM5 sulfate aerosol is present in all three hydrophilic aerosol modes,
while secondary organic aerosol is only present in the fine Aitken and
accumulation modes (Liu
et al., 2012, 2016). Aerosol microphysics was applied in the same way to the
new iron aerosol tracers as the base aerosol species (Liu
et al., 2012, 2016). Fire emissions were vertically distributed between six
injection height ranges: 0–0.1, 0.1–0.5, 0.5–1.0, 1.0–2.0, 2.0–3.0, and
3.0–6.0 km, as per AeroCom recommendations (Dentener
et al., 2006). Fire emissions were uniformly distributed in model levels
between height limits. Unless otherwise stated, aerosol and precursor gas
mass emissions were from the Climate Model Intercomparison Program (CMIP5)
inventory (Lamarque et al.,
2010). Major gas-phase oxidants (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, OH, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">HO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) were
supplied offline and were also from Lamarque et al. (2010). Meteorology (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mi>U</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mi>V</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) was
nudged to Modern-Era Retrospective analysis for Research and Applications
(MERRA) data for 2006–2011. Unless otherwise stated, the last 5 years
were used for analysis.</p>
      <p id="d1e850">The model used in this study performed well when compared to observations
from a variety of different environments and produced aerosol
concentrations that were close to those of the multi-model mean of similarly
complex aerosol models (Fanourgakis et
al., 2019).</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Dust aerosol modelling</title>
      <p id="d1e860">Mineral dust aerosol was modelled via the Dust Entrainment and Deposition
model (DEAD; Zender et al., 2003),
which was previously updated to include the brittle fragmentation theory of
vertical dust flux (Kok, 2011) on mineral size
fractions (Albani
et al., 2014; Scanza et al., 2015). We further improved the emissions of
dust in MAM to follow a physically based vertical flux theory (Kok et al., 2014a), which has been
shown to significantly improve dust emissions (Kok et al., 2014b). Note that this method
allowed for the removal of the soil erodibility map approach previously
employed by the DEAD scheme (Table 1) and still provided more accurate
simulations of regional dust emissions and concentrations (Kok et al., 2014b). Dust aerosol optical
depth (AOD) was calculated using mineralogy-based radiation interactions as
described by Scanza et al. (2015). Dust emissions were
tuned such that a global annual mean dust AOD of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.03</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was
attained, as recommended by Ridley et al. (2016) and matching values in Scanza et al. (2015) for a similar model
configuration.</p>
      <p id="d1e873">Dust mineralogy in MIMI is designed to be comprised of eight separate
transported tracers: illite, kaolinite, montmorillonite, hematite, quartz,
calcite, feldspar, and gypsum (Scanza et al., 2015). Mineral soil
distributions were supplied offline (Claquin et al.,
1999) with the emission of each dust<?pagebreak page3838?> mineral species further refined
following the brittle fragmentation theory (Scanza et al., 2015).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Iron aerosol modelling</title>
      <p id="d1e884">The simulated life cycle of iron can be grouped into three main stages: (1) iron emission to the atmosphere, (2) physical–chemical iron processing during
transport, and (3) final iron deposition and thus loss from the atmosphere.
In the following sections, we describe the emissions and subsequent
atmospheric dissolution of iron (stages 1 and 2), while the effects of this
on the magnitude of oceanic soluble iron deposition (stage 3) in MIMI are
examined and compared to BAM-Fe in Sect. 4.</p>
      <p id="d1e887">Iron optical properties are currently considered to reflect those of
hematite because this mineral contains 97 % of the iron aerosol mass
fraction (see Sect. 2.3.1).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Iron aerosol emissions</title>
      <p id="d1e898">MIMI contains three major iron emission sources: mineral dust, fires
(defined here as the sum of wildfires and human-mediated biomass burning),
and anthropogenic combustion (defined here as the sum of industrial and
domestic biofuel burning). In the BAM-Fe version of the model, fire and
anthropogenic combustion emissions were combined into a single static
monthly mean value. In MIMI, fire emissions of iron were updated to be
distinct from other pyrogenic iron sources and were parameterized to track
the BC emissions from fires using an Fe : BC ratio. Fire BC emissions were
simulated to be time varying on a monthly scale, resulting in a much more
pronounced seasonality to fire iron emissions (e.g.
Giglio et al., 2013) compared to BAM-Fe wherein seasonality was not imposed.</p>
      <p id="d1e901">For all iron species in each mode, the aerosol number emissions
(Fe<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">emit</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">num</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) were calculated from the mass emissions within the same
mode (Fe<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">emit</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mass</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) using the properties in Table 2 and following Liu et al. (2012):
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M39" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fe</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">emit</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">num</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fe</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">emit</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mass</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">emit</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3.SSS1">
  <label>2.3.1</label><title>Iron emissions within mineral dust aerosol</title>
      <p id="d1e994">Based on previous research by Journet et al. (2008) and Ito and
Xu (2014), the iron fraction in each mineral
species was prescribed at emission as follows: 57.5 % in hematite,<?pagebreak page3839?> 11 %
in smectite, 4 % in illite, 0.24 % in kaolinite, 0.34 % in feldspar,
and 0 % in the remaining three mineral species (Table 3), which has been
shown to improve the accuracy of the modelled total iron fraction estimated
from mineral dust (Scanza
et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2015). The mass of each of the eight mineral
dust species advected at each model time step was the residual mineral mass
(i.e. after the removal of the iron mass) such that the sum of all eight
minerals and the total iron from mineral dust equalled unity and hence the
original total singular dust mass emitted from the land surface.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Table 3</label><caption><p id="d1e1000">Mass fraction of iron in each simulated iron-bearing dust mineral
species and allocation to each mineral iron tracer at emission. At emission
medium-soluble iron is equivalent to the fast-soluble iron fraction (i.e. the
fraction which is already assumed to be soluble at emission). Residual
mineral dust mass is then advected as its respective tracer.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col6" align="center">Mineral dust mass percent allocated to each dust iron tracer at emission </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mineral</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Medium-soluble</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Medium-insoluble</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Slow-soluble</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Slow-insoluble</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Total</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hematite</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">57.5 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">57.5 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Smectite</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.55 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10.45 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">11.0 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Illite</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.11 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.89 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.0 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Kaolinite</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.01 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.23 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.24 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Feldspar</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.01 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.33 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.34 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1167">Iron emissions from the five iron-bearing mineral dust species (three dust
minerals contain no iron) were then partitioned into the four advected
mineral-dust-bearing iron aerosol tracers (Table 3); iron tracers were
defined as being (in)soluble and by the speed of the atmospheric reaction
rate acting on them: slow or medium (Scanza et al., 2018). Note that slow-
and medium-soluble iron is only produced by non-reversible atmospheric
processing within the model; therefore, computational costs can be reduced
by not creating a separate iron tracer representing the fraction which is
already soluble at emission (i.e. “fast” reacting) but instead adding an
initial medium-soluble iron processed emission burden which is equivalent to
the assumed fast-reacting iron fraction.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3.SSS2">
  <label>2.3.2</label><title>Iron aerosol emissions from fires</title>
      <p id="d1e1178">Following Luo et al. (2008), we used observed Fe : BC mass ratios to estimate
fine- and coarse-mode iron emissions from fires. An additional difference
between BAM (CAM4) and MAM (CAM5) is the emission dataset used to
estimate global fire emissions of aerosol and trace gases. The BAM model
uses adjusted AeroCom fire emissions (Dentener et al., 2006;
Scanza et al., 2018), while MAM uses CMIP5 fire emissions (Lamarque et al., 2010). Base
fire BC emissions within the CMIP5 database are 2.55 Tg a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> BC;
however, the scaling of emissions from fires has been shown to be necessary
to improve model-to-observed (aerosol optical depth and particulate matter)
BC ratios (Reddington
et al., 2016; Ward et al., 2012). Therefore, we globally scaled the fire
iron emissions by a uniform factor of 2, which is comparable with the
overall lower scaling factor from a review of the literature by Reddington
et al. (2016; Table 2).
Fine-mode iron emissions from fires were then segregated to assign 10 % of
the fine-sized mass to the Aitken mode, with the remaining 90 % assigned
to the accumulation mode.</p>
      <p id="d1e1193">Luo et al. (2008) used a single Amazonian observational
dataset in their study to determine the flux of iron aerosol from fires
(Fe : BC). We extended this to incorporate other Amazonian fire (Fe : BC) data and, importantly, non-Amazonian biome fire (Fe : BC) data, which are likely to have different combustion properties and hence iron emissions (e.g. Akagi
et al., 2011). From Table 4, we suggest that after adding 11 more data
inventory values, Luo et al. likely underrepresented the global fine-mode
Fe : BC ratio at 0.02. We instead used the global mean Fe : BC ratio from the
additional data of 0.06. Conversely, Luo et al. likely overrepresented the
coarse-mode Fe : BC ratio at 1.4. By including additional observational
information from Artaxo et al. (2013) we reduced this
to 1.0. Using size-segregated wet season (i.e. representing a
locally transported emission source) observation data from Artaxo et al. (2013), we estimated that the amount of BC mass in the
coarse mode was 37 % of fine-mode mass. Overall this doubles the
fractional contribution of fine-mode (BAM: 0.1–1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m size bin, MAM:
sum of Aitken and accumulation modes) iron emissions from fires (BAM-Fe:
fine is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> % of total mass, MIMI: fine is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> % of total mass).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T4"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Table 4</label><caption><p id="d1e1221">Measured iron (Fe) and black carbon (BC) values (various units; as
only the Fe : BC ratio is required they are not included) and the Fe : BC ratio;
calculated with three decimal places, ratio reported to one significant
figure to reflect high uncertainty. Modelled fire emission ratio for Fe : BC
then calculated from observed ratios.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.90}[.90]?><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Biome</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Reference</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Fe</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">BC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Fe : BC</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cerrado</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Yamasoe et al. (2000)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.08</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">12.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.006</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Yamasoe et al. (2000)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.05</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">6.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.008</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Ward and Hardy (1991)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.273</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col5" align="center">Mean Fe : BC ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Temperate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Ward and Hardy (1991)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.020</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col5" align="center">Mean Fe : BC ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.02 </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Tropical</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Luo et al. (2008)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.020</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Artaxo et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">179</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2801</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.639</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Artaxo et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">27</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">405</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.067</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Artaxo et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">98</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.204</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Artaxo et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">235</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.051</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Ward and Hardy (1991)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.090</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Yamasoe et al. (2000)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.03</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">7.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.004</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Yamasoe et al. (2000)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.05</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.013</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col5" align="center">Mean Fe : BC ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.06 </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Global</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col5" align="center">Mean Fe : BC ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.06 </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1535">Using the soluble Fe : BC ratio of 0.02 reported in Luo et al. (2008) resulted in 33 % solubility of fine-mode iron
from fires at emission, which is lower than the 46 % reported in Oakes et
al. (2012)
and higher than the 12 % reported in Ito (2013).
As few data exist in the literature pertaining to coarse-mode BC, or more
importantly its ratio to iron, we retained the 4 % solubility of iron in
the coarse mode at emission, as suggested by Luo et al.</p>
      <p id="d1e1538">Total iron emissions from fires in MIMI were 2.2 Tg Fe a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Aitken:
0.02 Tg a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, accumulation: 0.28 Tg a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, coarse: 1.9 Tg a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>),
representing an approximate increase in iron emissions from fires of around
25 % compared with those from BAM-Fe, with most of the mass (86 %) still
in the coarse mode. The lower 25 % increase between BAM-Fe and MIMI iron
emissions, compared to the doubling of the fire iron emissions themselves
within MIMI, is due to different underlying fire emission inventories used
in each model. Aerosol number concentrations were then calculated using
Eq. (1) and the physical properties listed in Table 2. We adopted the
methodology of Wang et al. (2015) by
assuming that the density of iron aerosol from fires (and anthropogenic
combustion) in the Aitken and accumulation modes matches that of BC, while
in the coarse mode it matches that of mineral dust. The vertical distribution
of iron emissions from fires was also updated in MIMI (BAM-Fe emitted all
iron from fires at the surface) to account for pyro-convection, which lofts
aerosol to higher altitudes at the point of emission within the model (Rémy
et al., 2017; Sofiev et al., 2012; Wagner et al., 2018).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3.SSS3">
  <label>2.3.3</label><title>Iron emissions from anthropogenic combustion sources</title>
      <p id="d1e1598">Separate lines of evidence (Conway et
al., 2019; Ito et al., 2019; Matsui et al., 2018) have shown that
anthropogenic industrial iron emissions are highly likely to be larger than
previously estimated (e.g.
Ito, 2015; Luo et al., 2008; Myriokefalitakis et al., 2018). Therefore,
anthropogenic combustion emissions of iron in MIMI were the same as those in
BAM-Fe, as first reported by Luo et al. (2008),
uniformly multiplied by a factor of 5 to bring them into closer agreement<?pagebreak page3840?> with
observations of industrial magnetite emissions in line with Matsui et al. (2018). Resulting fine-mode anthropogenic
combustion emissions were 0.50 Tg Fe a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and coarse-mode emissions were
2.8 Tg Fe a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Similar to fire emissions, 10 % of fine-sized
emissions were partitioned into the Aitken mode at emission; the remaining
90 % of fine-sized emissions were emitted into the accumulation mode, and
100 % of coarse-sized emissions were emitted to the coarse mode. We retain
the Luo et al. (2008) estimate of 4 % combustion iron
solubility at emission (Chuang et al., 2005).
Calculations of aerosol number concentrations of combustion iron followed
the same procedure as described for fire emissions in Sect. 2.3.2.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>Atmospheric iron aerosol processing</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4.SSS1">
  <label>2.4.1</label><title>Acid and organic ligand processing</title>
      <p id="d1e1642">Once airborne, iron undergoes a series of physical and chemical processing
steps within the atmosphere, each working to alter the soluble iron fraction
(i.e. its solubility). The MIMI atmospheric iron dissolution scheme is
presented in Table 5, with a full description reported previously by Scanza
et al. (2018). Within each of the three
iron-bearing aerosol size modes, six tracers of iron were advected within
the model: medium-insoluble and medium-soluble mineral dust iron (containing
both readily released and medium-reactive mineral dust iron; Scanza et al., 2018), slow-insoluble and
slow-soluble mineral dust iron, and insoluble and soluble pyrogenic (sum of
fires and anthropogenic combustion) iron, which was assumed to be
medium-reactive (Scanza et al., 2018). Both
proton- and organic-ligand-promoted iron dissolution mechanisms were
modelled. The proton-promoted dissolution scheme was dependent upon an
estimated [<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>], calculated from the ratio of sulfate to calcite, and
the simulated temperature. Organic ligand dissolution was dependent upon the
simulated secondary organic carbon concentration as oxalate (the main reactant) itself
was not modelled. Both the sulfate and secondary organic carbon aerosol
(Fig. S1 in the Supplement), which the iron processing requires, are fundamental
components of aerosol models (e.g.
Kanakidou et al., 2005; Mann et al., 2014). In CAM sulfate is mainly formed
via the oxidation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SO</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">aq</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with a smaller contribution from
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> condensation on aerosol, while secondary organic aerosol is
formed via the partitioning of semi-volatile organic gases (Liu
et al., 2012). Neither gas-to-particle production processes are structurally
modified from the description of CAM5 by Liu et al. (2012,
2016) by the incorporation of MIMI. A structural model improvement was that
MAM (CAM5) advected separate tracers for the interstitial and cloud-borne
aerosol phases, so the proton- and organic-ligand-promoted dissolution
reactions were applied to each aerosol phase, respectively.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Table 5</label><caption><p id="d1e1693">Summary of atmospheric processing reaction equations from Scanza et
al. (2018). Here <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> represents either medium- or
slow-reacting iron aerosol (combustion iron is modelled as medium). The pH
calculation is updated to be calculated within each mode, and oxalate
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) concentrations are calculated based only on the
secondary organic aerosol (SOA) concentrations.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="justify" colwidth="56.905512pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="justify" colwidth="170.716535pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="justify" colwidth="227.622047pt"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Reaction equation</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Reaction rate constituents</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Acid <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>processing <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>of aerosol</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mfenced close="]" open="["><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fe</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soluble</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">RFe</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">acid</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close="]" open="["><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fe</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">insoluble</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (2) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fe</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">insoluble</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fe</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soluble</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (3)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">RFe</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">acid</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MW</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>  <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the temperature-dependent rate coefficient <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(moles m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">med</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.0</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">298.0</mml:mn></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.0</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">temp</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">K</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">slow</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mfrac><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.0</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">298.0</mml:mn></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.0</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">temp</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">K</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>  <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the proton concentration, with an empirical reaction order <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">med</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.39</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">slow</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>  <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>If [<inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>] <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> [calcite] then pH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 in Aitken and accumulation modes or 2 in coarse; <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>otherwise, pH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7.5 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>  <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) accounts for dissolution rate change with variation from equilibrium (equals 1 for simplicity; Luo et al., 2008)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the specific surface area (m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> g<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>MW<inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is the molecular weight (g mol<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">med</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">90.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> g<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">slow</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> g<inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Organic <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>ligand <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>processing</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fe</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soluble</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">RFe</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">oxal</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fe</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">insoluble</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (4) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mfenced close="]" open="["><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fe</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">insoluble</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fe</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">soluble</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (5)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">RFe</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">oxal</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close="]" open="["><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>  <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>If l <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> medium (or combustion) iron: <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>M<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>  <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>If l <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> slow iron: <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>M<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>  <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>For longitude (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), latitude (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), and level (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>): <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">150</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close="]" open="["><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOA</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SOA</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e2855">Dust aerosol moving through areas containing acidic gases, with a pH 1–2,
increases the solubility of the iron<?pagebreak page3841?> contained within it (Ingall
et al., 2018; Longo et al., 2016; Meskhidze et al., 2003; Solmon et al.,
2009), and mineralogy is a key factor determining the rate of
dissolution at a given pH (Journet et al., 2008; Scanza et
al., 2018). Modelled aerosol pH in MIMI was parameterized to depend only on
the ratio of the calcium to sulfate aerosol concentration (Scanza et al., 2018). At each time step,
if [<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>] <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> [calcite], then the aerosol was assumed to be
acidic with a low pH, while if [<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>] <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> [calcite], then aerosol
was assumed to be well buffered (Böke et al., 1999) and the
pH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7.5. In MIMI, we updated the pH calculation from BAM-Fe in two ways: (1) in BAM-Fe, pH was calculated as the mean across all four size bins (0.1–10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m), while in MIMI, pH was calculated separately for each
interstitial aerosol size mode. (2) Aerosol measurements of pH have shown
that interstitial aerosol is likely to be more acidic than was assumed in
BAM-Fe (Longo et
al., 2016; Weber et al., 2016), even when taking into account declining
sulfate levels (Weber et al., 2016); therefore,
we have lowered the aerosol pH to 1 (from 2) in both the Aitken and
accumulation modes wherein sulfate aerosol dominates. However, in the coarse
mode, wherein dust dominates, we retained the lower pH boundary of 2.
Furthermore, MAM aerosol was simulated as an internally mixed aerosol;
therefore, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> : Ca ratio included the mixing of these aerosol
components within each mode. See Sect. 4.2 for a comparison of acid
processing in MIMI with the literature and the previous model (BAM-Fe).</p>
      <p id="d1e2922">All aerosol species in the host CAM5 framework are carried in either an
interstitial (i.e. not associated with water) or cloud-borne (i.e.
associated with water) phase. The organic<?pagebreak page3842?> ligand reaction only proceeds
within MIMI if the condition that cloud is present in the grid cell is first
met. If cloud is present then only the iron aerosol which is associated with
water undergoes organic ligand processing (i.e. the interstitial aerosol
component remains unchanged). Any future development of MIMI within an
aerosol model which does not advect a separate tracer for the cloud-borne
phase of aerosol would therefore need to adjust the reaction to take account
of this. An assumed oxalate concentration in MIMI was estimated based on the
modelled organic carbon concentration and could not exceed a maximum
concentration threshold of 15 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>mol L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Scanza et al., 2018). In BAM-Fe, oxalate
was derived from the sum of both the primary and secondary organic carbon
aerosol concentrations, while in MIMI this was updated to be dependent only
upon the secondary organic carbon source because oxalate is itself a product
of the oxidation of volatile organic carbon gases (Myriokefalitakis et al.,
2011). An additional term was added to the reaction mechanism to account for
the small amount of organic ligand processing proceeding by species other
than oxalate  (Scanza et al., 2018). See
Sect. 4.2 for a comparison of in-cloud organic dissolution in MIMI with
the literature and the previous model (BAM-Fe).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4.SSS2">
  <label>2.4.2</label><title>Computational costs</title>
      <p id="d1e2953">Earth system models are generally characterized by having a heavy
computational burden in simulating atmospheric processes. The inclusion of
MIMI requires eight dust mineral tracers (a net addition of seven) and six
iron tracers. The total number of new aerosol tracers is 39 (13 in each of
the three aerosol modes) if dust mineralogy is not already present or 18
new aerosol tracers if it is (e.g. NASA GISS model; Perlwitz et al.,
2015a, b). The additional computational cost of MIMI within CESM-CAM5
is approximately a doubling of the required core hours; around half of that
is associated with dust mineralogy speciation and the other half with iron
speciation and processing (Table 6). Note that additional computational
tuning, or changes in configuration, could modify these computational change
estimates. For example, with dust mineralogy (MAM4DU8) there is an
approximate tenfold increase in required core hours due to model structural
differences when transitioning from CAM5 to CAM6.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><label>Table 6</label><caption><p id="d1e2959">Simulation time (in seconds per simulated year) for the CESM-MAM4
model. The CAM5 base model, with the addition of dust mineralogy and with
the addition of dust mineralogy and iron processing (i.e. MIMI v1.0), is shown. The cost of running the new higher-resolution CAM6 model with
dust mineralogy is also shown for comparison. All CAM5 simulations
were executed on 10 nodes with 36 cores per node for 2 years (2006–2007) with
consistent output fields. CAM6 simulations are executed on 30 nodes with 36 cores per node.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col4" align="center" colsep="1">CAM5 </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" colname="col5">CAM6</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">MAM4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">MAM4DU8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">MAM4DU8FE6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">MAM4DU8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(base model)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(dust mineralogy)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(MIMIv1.0)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(dust mineralogy)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Number of advected aerosol species</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">45</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">63</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">46</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Grid cell resolution  (lon <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> lat)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">144 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 96</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">144 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 96</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">144 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 96</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">288 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 192</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Wall clock  s a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>(simulation)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3954</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5856</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">7836</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">20167</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Core hours</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">396</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">586</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">784</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">6051</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <label>2.5</label><title>Observation and model iron calculations</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5.SSS1">
  <label>2.5.1</label><title>Spatially aggregating limited observations</title>
      <p id="d1e3165">The observations of total iron concentrations and the fractional solubility
of iron used in this study are joint totals (1524 records) of those
reported in Mahowald et al. (2009) and
Myriokefalitakis et al. (2018). However,
many of these observations represent averages of only one or a few days of
iron and soluble iron measurements and can thus be difficult to compare
against annual, or longer, mean time periods calculated within the model.
Furthermore, building empirical distributions of iron properties from
observations requires a larger sample size than currently available in many
regions. We therefore tested how aggregating the observations spatially,
sometimes termed “super-obbing”, altered our model evaluation. Our objective
was to capture the small regional-scale properties of iron and not those at
a point source; therefore, we assume that the benefits gained by aggregating
in this way, which include helping to produce a statistically useful number of observations,
outweigh any potential biases.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5.SSS2">
  <label>2.5.2</label><title>Variations in model temporal averaging</title>
      <?pagebreak page3843?><p id="d1e3176">The model was run at a 30 min time resolution. At each 30 min time
step, soluble iron, total iron, and the ratio of soluble to total iron (iron
solubility) were computed. The model output was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, (daily mean soluble
iron concentration on day <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (daily mean total iron concentration on
day <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (daily mean iron solubility on day <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>). Note that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
the daily mean of the calculated 30 min solubilities and hence is not
equal to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. We define online solubility as the
average of ratios calculated as follows:
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>6</label><mml:math id="M131" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the total number of records over which the average was
calculated. Online solubility is reported throughout this study. In Sect. 3.4, we then compare the average of ratios to the ratio of averages (defined
as offline solubility), calculated as follows:
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>7</label><mml:math id="M133" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> are the grid cell averages of soluble and
total iron concentrations, respectively, over the total time period
considered in this study (2007 to 2011). While Eq. (7) is common within
the literature, this methodology can produce larger variability in iron
solubility across grid cells because it is based on both soluble and total
iron annual mean concentrations. In the online method, variability is
reduced as extreme values in soluble and total iron concentrations generally
do not occur at the same time. We can define the occurrence of extreme
values, with respect to the time frame considered, by analysing a relative
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-score metric calculated as follows:
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.Ex1"><mml:math id="M137" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fe</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fe</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fe</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fe</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            or
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><label>8</label><mml:math id="M138" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fe</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fe</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fe</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fe</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            where Fe is either total (Fe<inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) or soluble (Fe<inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) iron. The relative
normalized <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> score can then be calculated as follows:
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><label>9</label><mml:math id="M142" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> scores of total and soluble iron
concentrations, respectively, at each grid cell for each time step <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. The
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-score metric provides a relative direction and distance of an
instantaneous value with respect to its mean. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> score is reported in
multiples of the standard deviation (Eq. 8); therefore, a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> score of
zero indicates that the data point value is identical to the mean value. To
assess the relative difference in the variability at a given time between
the modelled total and soluble iron concentration and its mean, we calculated
the difference in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> scores between total and soluble iron concentrations and
normalized it using the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> score of total iron concentration (Eq. 9).
Note that the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> score of the soluble iron concentration could also be used
to normalize the difference. This method allows for the examination of how
the occurrence of extreme concentration values in total and soluble iron
influences the method of solubility calculation (Eq. 6 vs. Eq. 7).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS6">
  <label>2.6</label><title>Iron ocean deposition source apportionment</title>
      <p id="d1e3686">An ocean deposition source apportionment sub-study was designed to classify
ocean deposition regions according to the dominant atmospheric soluble iron
source, rather than ocean basins defined from a more traditional physical
oceanographic viewpoint (e.g. Gregg et
al., 2003). By incorporating recent model estimates for dust and the
importance of pyrogenic iron emissions (Luo et al., 2008; Matsui et
al., 2018) the seven large-scale source regions defined in Mahowald et al. (2008) were modified slightly to
separate the major dust iron source regions from fire and anthropogenic
combustion iron source regions. This resulted in a total of 10 iron emission
source regions (Fig. 1; see also Table S1 for details).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e3691">Major iron aerosol emission source regions.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3835/2019/gmd-12-3835-2019-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3700"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>Simulations in the source apportionment study used BAM-Fe, as described in
Scanza et al. (2018), with slight
modification. Briefly, anthropogenic combustion iron emissions were
increased by a uniform factor of 5, and iron from fires followed the
updated Fe : BC ratio (Table 4) and seasonal variability in the fire BC
emissions, all as per MIMI. Aerosols were externally mixed in BAM, and
therefore altering the regional aerosol loading did not affect aerosol
transport or deposition in the more significant way it could in MAM, in
which aerosols are internally mixed. This information was then used in
Sect. 4.3 to compare differences in the daily mean deposition of soluble
iron between the BAM-Fe and MIMI models within each defined ocean region.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Modelled dust and iron aerosol concentrations compared to observations</title>
      <p id="d1e3713">In terms of Earth system modelling and the biogeochemistry that connects
the land–atmosphere–ocean components, we are ultimately motivated to
improve the magnitude of the atmosphere-to-ocean iron deposition flux and
its fractional solubility (from which the soluble iron flux can be derived).
We compare the model results with a series of observations and herein
highlight some of the problems discovered when directly comparing with a
sporadic (in both space and time) observation dataset, as is currently
common practice (Myriokefalitakis
et al., 2018).</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Global dust comparisons</title>
      <p id="d1e3723">Comparison of dust AOD with regional dust AOD observations (Fig. 2) from the
AERONET observational datasets (Holben et al., 1998), as
subsampled in Albani et al. (2014),
shows good agreement globally (correlation: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.64</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). This
results in MAM annual global mean emissions of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3250</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">77</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Tg dust a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Aitken <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> Tg a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, accumulation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">36</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> Tg a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, coarse
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3198</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> Tg a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), which is at the higher end of literature estimates of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–4000 Tg dust a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Bullard
et al., 2016; Huneeus et al., 2011; Kok et al., 2017). Dust emissions in MAM
are <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">84</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % higher than our previous mean of 1768 Tg dust a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
in BAM (Scanza et al., 2018) because<?pagebreak page3844?> dust
lifetime has proportionally decreased (Table S2), which affects coarse-mode
dust aerosol (wherein 98 %–99 % of total dust mass is emitted) more than
fine-mode dust aerosol. Globally, both dust concentrations (correlation:
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.89</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and deposition (correlation: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.83</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) are
simulated well compared to observations within MIMI. A higher correlation of
modelled dust concentrations with observations is calculated in the Northern
Hemisphere (NH; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.89</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) compared to the Southern Hemisphere (SH;
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.67</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), but the gradient of the line of best fit is further from
1 : 1 (NH: 1.22 vs. SH: 1.07). Conversely, for dust deposition a lower
correlation with observations is simulated in the NH (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.75</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
compared to the SH (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) but with a gradient of the line of
best fit closer to 1 : 1 (NH: 1.07 vs. SH: 0.72). Overall, the results presented
in this study suggest an improvement on previous dust modelling
complications related to underestimating dust deposition when tuned to dust
concentration (Huneeus et
al., 2011).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e3963">Dust aerosol optical depth, surface concentrations, and deposition
in modal aerosol model and observations (Albani et al., 2014; Holben
et al., 1998). Correlation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), gradient (m), and intercept (c) shown
for global (G), Northern Hemisphere (N), and Southern Hemisphere (S) regions.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3835/2019/gmd-12-3835-2019-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>High-latitude dust and iron aerosol</title>
      <p id="d1e3991">Including the parametrization of Kok et al. (2014a) removes the requirement of a
soil erodibility map (Table 1). In addition, in previous versions of the
model, high-latitude dust sources were zeroed because there were no
observations at that time to support high-latitude sources of dust (Albani et al., 2014). However,
more recent observations have suggested that high-latitude dust sources do exist (Bullard et al., 2016; Crusius et al., 2011;
Tobo et al., 2019), often related to glacial processes (Bullard, 2017) with a higher fraction of bioavailable
iron relative to lower-latitude dust sources (Shoenfelt et al., 2017). Thus,
for the new version of the model we have allowed for the inclusion of high-latitude dust sources (Fig. 3). In general, aerosol dust and iron
concentrations peak closest to the coastlines and during summer.
Emissions of dust from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N are
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % of the global dust total, which is half
of the estimates derived from field and satellite data at 2 %–3 % of the
global total (Bullard, 2017; Bullard et al.,
2016). However, the resulting magnitude and seasonality of dust
concentrations have been shown in a recent study to be consistent with
observed measurements from Svalbard (Tobo et al., 2019).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e4028">High-latitude (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N) dust (sum of
eight mineral species and four dust–iron species) and iron (sum of four
dust–iron species) mass concentrations (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) at the surface
model level.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3835/2019/gmd-12-3835-2019-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Global iron aerosol concentration and fractional solubility</title>
      <p id="d1e4083">There are several propositions explaining sources of soluble iron and
the inverse relationship between total iron amount and iron solubility
(Sholkovitz et al., 2012). While
total iron mass concentrations are dominated by desert dust sources, soluble
iron can be a product of mineral dust processed in the atmosphere or emitted
from pyrogenic sources (Chuang
et al., 2005; Guieu et al., 2005; Ito et al., 2019; Luo et al., 2008;
Meskhidze et al., 2003; Schroth et al., 2009). Previous studies have shown
that either of these can explain the inverse relationship and that the
spatial distribution of data is required to provide more information
(Mahowald et al., 2018). Therefore, we explored how
to best use the spatial data to compare with the model results. The
5-year (2007 to 2011) mean iron concentration from MIMI is compared to an
extensive dataset of observations of total iron and its fractional
solubility (Fig. 4). The model captures the global mean observational total
iron concentration well; however, relatively low regional correlations
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) occur in the south Indian (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), South
Atlantic (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.34</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), North American (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.35</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and high-latitude (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.06</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) ocean regions, suggesting that future model
improvements can be focused here.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e4163">Daily mean model total iron concentration and solubility from 2007
to 2011. Observations (circles) overlaid (at resolution of the model grid)
as a mean from 1524 individual records in Mahowald et al. (2009) and in Myriokefalitakis et al. (2018). Also shown
are scatter plots of the model mean and standard deviation compared to each
available observation and identified by oceanic region. Correlation
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), gradient (m), and intercept (c) for total iron with observations
shown for each region.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3835/2019/gmd-12-3835-2019-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4183">In the absence of iron atmospheric process modelling, ocean biogeochemistry
models with an iron component (e.g.
Aumont et al., 2015; Moore et al., 2004) have estimated iron solubility from
offline dust modelling by means of an assumption that it contains 3.5 %
iron by weight, of which 2 % is soluble. Iron solubility is highly
temporally and spatially variable, however, and in the absence of<?pagebreak page3845?> spatial
atmospheric emission information, pyrogenic iron sources, and atmospheric
processing of iron, an estimate of 2 % solubility leads to underestimates
of observed iron solubility in nearly all HNLC ocean regions (Fig. 4).</p>
      <p id="d1e4187">Aggregating observations onto a lower-resolution grid (sometimes termed
super-obbing) compared with the model can help reduce the representation
error when comparing with such limited observations (Schutgens et al., 2017). Fig. 5 uses
an observational resolution one-third that of the model, and the
model-to-observation comparison of the mean state is thus improved.
Persistent observation-based features of the local environment become more
obvious, while less frequent ones conversely diminish. At this
observational resolution, the low total iron concentrations in the North
Atlantic <inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, as seen in Fig. 4, are
perhaps not a common feature, and the model much more precisely represents
the climatological state here than Fig. 4 might suggest. However, examining
the North Pacific reveals that the model imprecisely represents the mean
state here. Potential missing iron sources in remote regions, such as the
North Pacific, include the following: (1) shipping emissions (Ito,
2013), which have a high soluble iron content from oil combustion
(Schroth et al., 2009); (2) volcanic emissions, which
provide a localized “fertilizer” to the surface ocean owing to the
macronutrients and trace metal nutrients contained within them (Achterberg et al., 2013;
Langmann et al., 2010; Rogan et al., 2016); and (3) low Asian and South
American aerosol concentrations, either through underrepresenting combustion
emission sources (Matsui et al., 2018) or in
the transport and deposition of aerosol within these regions (Wu et al., 2018).
These are discussed in more detail in Sect. 5.1 and 5.2.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e4210">Daily mean model total iron concentration and solubility from 2007
to 2011. Observations (circles) overlaid (at a resolution one-third of the
model grid) as a mean from 1524 individual records in Mahowald et al. (2009) and in Myriokefalitakis et al. (2018).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3835/2019/gmd-12-3835-2019-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4219">In terms of iron solubility (soluble iron concentration <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> total iron
concentration), the model is not capturing the observational mean state in
many regions (Fig. 5). A detailed examination of the observation point at
18<inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N and 330<inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E (anomalous green point
surrounded by blue points in the North African outflow plume in Fig. 4) and
the nine model grid cells co-located with it in Fig. 6 shows how a single
high observation (155 % percent solubility) is causing a representation
issue (see also Sect. 4.3 regarding soluble iron deposition). Both model
and observation histogram distributions are similar, as are the median
(model: 1.8, observation: 0.9) and geometric mean (model: 2.1,<?pagebreak page3846?> observation:
1.3) values. However, the arithmetic means are not similar (model: 2.5,
observation: 9.6) and while a high observation value of 155 % is likely to
be an outlier and should be at most 100 %, it still informs us about what
is possible, and simply discounting it (even at an adjusted 100 %) would
require strong justification. It is therefore advisable to instead alter the
estimator of the average. Comparing model to observation differences
calculated using the median or geometric mean reveals that they are similar
in magnitude, as one would expect for log-normally distributed data (Fig. 6 insert). Although the median is robust with respect to outliers, the model
results may not exhibit a uniform Gaussian distribution (Fig. 6 insert;
solid compared to dashed lines), and often the number of available
observations is also low (Fig. 7), suggesting that its use also requires
careful consideration. An equivalent methodology to the geometric mean in
Fig. 7 would be to first log transform the data before calculating the
arithmetic mean. Arguments pertaining to the appropriate methodology for
comparing model results to temporally limited observations extend beyond the
iron aerosol examination in this study to all aerosol comparisons with
limited observations.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e4249">Histogram of observations (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and daily model results (2007
to 2011) of iron solubility between 16 to 20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N and 27 to
32<inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W (one observation point and nine co-located model grid
cells in Fig. 5). Mean (dashed lines), geometric mean (dot-dash lines), and
median (full line) values shown the above respective dataset colour line. Note
that the single observation value of 155 % is off the scale and placed as
such with the value given above. Insert: log plot for the same data (solid
lines) with projected log-normal distribution from the mean and standard
deviation of the data (dashed lines).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3835/2019/gmd-12-3835-2019-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e4291">Daily arithmetic mean, geometric mean, and median model solubility
(2007 to 2011). Observations are overlaid (at resolution one-third of the model
grid) as the arithmetic mean, geometric mean, or median with respect to
the model averaging. The number of observations is denoted by symbols: lowest
confidence (one observation, diamond); intermediate confidence (two to four
observations, triangle); highest confidence (five or more observations,
circle).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3835/2019/gmd-12-3835-2019-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <label>3.4</label><title>Calculating iron solubility</title>
      <p id="d1e4309">It is interesting to note the effect that the order of operations (taking
the average of ratios compared to the ratio of<?pagebreak page3847?> averages) has when
calculating iron solubility (Fig. 8). Throughout this study, the percent of iron
solubility was calculated at each model time step (30 min) and then the
daily mean output was analysed (online; Eq. 6) at an annual or 5-year mean
time resolution. It is also acceptable to use the simulated soluble and
total iron concentrations to generate the annual or 5-year mean iron
solubility in a post-processing step (offline; Eq. 7). The resulting
differences between methods are not insignificant (Fig. 8); however, the offline
method creates a distribution in which low iron solubility is generally
lower and the highest (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">18</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %) iron solubilities are generally
higher. Overall, the global annual mean iron solubility calculated online is
one-third (34 %; NH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 40 %, SH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 29 %) higher than when calculated
offline.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e4338">Mean solubility of iron when solubility is calculated at each 30 min model time step (“online”) and when it is calculated from the post-processing of daily mean soluble and total iron concentration (“offline”).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3835/2019/gmd-12-3835-2019-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4347">The average relative <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> score (Eqs. 8 and 9) is around zero for most
model grid cells (Fig. 9), indicating that they mostly followed similar
temporal and relative magnitude trends. However, even if the average
relative <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> scores are around zero and the ratio of relative standard
deviations is around one, the ratio of online- to offline-calculated iron
solubility is most likely <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Temporal differences in the
soluble and total iron concentration might therefore be controlling the
overall solubility at each model grid cell. We also find that the ratio of
online and offline solubility is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for most of the cases when
the ratio of the relative standard deviations of soluble and total iron is
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. S2), indicating that the differences in both methods of
iron solubility calculation are sensitive to the differences in the relative
size of the tails of the distribution. That is, if soluble iron has narrower
tails compared to total iron at any grid cell, it is highly likely that a
higher solubility will be obtained in the online method compared to
offline. The extreme ratio of the tails of soluble and total iron is only
found in specific regions with the highest temporal variability in emissions and
modelled solubilization of insoluble iron (Fig. S2).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e4397">Relationship of online- to offline-derived iron solubility to the
relative <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> score for total (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fe</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and soluble (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fe</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) iron and the
relative standard deviation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fe</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Fe</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) at each grid cell for the  year
2007.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3835/2019/gmd-12-3835-2019-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4458">Field measurements have generally suggested an inverse relationship between
total and soluble iron concentrations (Myriokefalitakis et al., 2018). This
means that high total iron concentrations are generally accompanied by low
soluble iron concentrations and vice versa. By assuming that the field
measurements faithfully represented the actual average values of soluble and
total iron concentration at those locations, we implicitly assume that all
the measurements have a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> score of zero. In Fig. 9 we show that this is not
the case with the modelled results, and the two variables can be relatively
farther from their respective means even when averaged over the modelled
time period.</p>
      <p id="d1e4468">The sensitivity of a result to the order of operations extends beyond iron
solubility to any variable that is calculated in a similar manner, and
current multi-model intercomparison project (MIP) protocols do not
explicitly account for this. However, the effects of outliers, in both
online and offline methods, can be reduced by employing the geometric mean
and has been used in some MIPs (e.g.
Mann et al.,<?pagebreak page3848?> 2014). It will also be important to consider differences in
the solubility of iron induced by the choice of the order of operations as
ocean biogeochemical models move away from using offline results from global
climate or chemistry transport models to online results within Earth system
models, which are designed to couple the two components at each time step.
For short-term interactions between deposited iron and ocean biota, shorter-term averaging may be more important (e.g. Guieu et al., 2014), but for
the long-term accumulation of iron that is (re)cycling in the oceans,
the longer-term average may be more appropriate (Moore et
al., 2013). One should be aware, however, that iron is readily removed from
the ocean mixed layer, and thus the lifetime of iron may well be short
enough for the online calculation to be more appropriate much of the time
(Guieu et al., 2014).</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>MIMI vs. BAM-Fe</title>
      <p id="d1e4481">In this section, we discuss how the new modal aerosol-mode version of MIMI
compares to its predecessor bulk aerosol model version (BAM-Fe) throughout
all three stages of the atmospheric iron life cycle.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>Iron emission comparison</title>
      <p id="d1e4491">Globally averaged emissions of dust (3200 Tg a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and its iron
component (126 Tg a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) are within the current multi-model range (Table 7). The simulated annual mean iron in dust percentage is 4.1 %, with the
highest percent occurring in the coarse mode at 6.5 % and the lowest percent
occurring in the Aitken mode at 1.1 %. Accounting for dust mineralogy
therefore increases the global mean iron percent by weight above the
currently well-used global mean estimate of 3.5 % (e.g.
Jickells et al., 2005; Shi et al., 2012).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><label>Table 7</label><caption><p id="d1e4521">Dust, fire, and anthropogenic combustion emissions of iron and
relevant co-emitted aerosol emissions (to two significant figures).
Multi-model emission range from the four global atmospheric iron models
(including BAM-Fe) reported in Myriokefalitakis et al. (2018). Fine (sum
of Aitken and accumulation modes) and coarse (coarse mode) mass
emissions also given for dust, fire iron, and combustion iron.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col5" align="center">Annual mean emissions; Tg a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">BAM-Fe</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">MIMI</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Luo et al. (2008)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Multi-model</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Dust</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1800</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3200</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1600</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1200–5100</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fine, coarse</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">20, 1700</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">50, 3200</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Dust iron</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">57</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">130</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">55</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">38–130</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Pyrogenic iron (fire and comb.)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.8–2.7</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fire BC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Total fire iron</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fine, coarse</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.08, 1.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.30, 1.90</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.07, 1.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Combustion BC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Total comb. iron</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.66</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.66</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fine, coarse</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.10, 0.56</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.50, 2.80</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.10, 0.56</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e4755">Compared to BAM-Fe, MIMI dust emissions are <inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">80</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % higher
and the iron it contains is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">120</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % higher (Table 7).
Although both the BAM-Fe and MIMI models are globally tuned to a similar
dust AOD (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.03</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and based within the same host model
(CESM), changing from a bulk aerosol scheme (e.g.
Albani et al., 2014; Scanza et al., 2015) to a modal aerosol scheme reduces
the aerosol lifetime significantly (Liu
et al., 2012 and Table S2). The spatial distribution of dust emissions is
also different following the move to the Kok et al. (2014a, b)
parameterization (Table 1), resulting in the spatial distribution of dust
AOD also being altered (Fig. S3). Total pyrogenic iron emissions (sum of fires
and anthropogenic combustion activity) in MIMI are higher than previous
estimates by a factor of between 2 and 3 (Table 7), reflecting the
growing evidence that they have been previously
underestimated (Conway et
al., 2019; Ito et al., 2019; Matsui et al., 2018).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>Iron atmospheric processing comparison</title>
      <p id="d1e4796">There is a much lower aerosol pH in the fine aerosol modes (Aitken and
accumulation) in MIMI compared to that in BAM-Fe (Fig. 10). This is due to a
combination of resolving pH in each aerosol size mode in MIMI and the
subsequent lowering of the pH value (1) being applied in the two fine
aerosol modes (Aitken and accumulation). Conversely, dust dominating the
coarse aerosol mode provides more of an opportunity for [calcite] <inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> [<inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>] in this aerosol size fraction, resulting in most
continental areas having a high coarse-mode aerosol pH in MIMI compared with
the higher pH being much more localized to the major desert regions in
BAM-Fe. Acidic processing of iron in MIMI therefore proceeds faster globally
in the fine-sized aerosol modes (Aitken and accumulation) compared to the
BAM-Fe fine-sized bin (0.1–1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m), but it is generally slower over continental
regions in the coarse mode than in BAM-Fe coarse-sized bins (1–10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e4835">Surface-level annual mean interstitial aerosol pH. If [<inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>] <inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> [calcite] then pH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 in Aitken and accumulation modes or 2
in coarse; otherwise, pH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 7.5 (Table 5).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3835/2019/gmd-12-3835-2019-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page3849?><p id="d1e4876">Comparison of Fig. 10 to modelled pH estimates by Myriokefalitakis et al. (2015) shows
generally good agreement in the NH, but in the SH MIMI simulates less acidic
coarse-mode aerosol over continental regions and more acidic aerosol over
marine regions. As iron models are unable to capture the high observed iron
solubility (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %) over SH marine regions (Myriokefalitakis
et al., 2018) and in the absence of remote pH aerosol observations, we
suggest that our basic parameterization captures an aerosol pH which is
suitable for use in Earth system models</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{11}?><label>Figure 11</label><caption><p id="d1e4892"><bold>(a)</bold> Relative difference in organic ligand reaction on in-cloud
iron aerosol dissolution between MIMI and BAM-Fe. Due to significant
differences in simulated cloud cover between CAM4 and CAM5 oxalate
concentrations [OXL] are multiplied by the model-simulated cloud fraction in
this figure. <bold>(b)</bold> Surface-level oxalate (OXL) concentration in the model and
observations. Model values are monthly mean (2007–2011) and annual standard
deviation. Observation values are from Table S3 in Myriokefalitakis et al. (2011) and reported with
uncertainty where given.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3835/2019/gmd-12-3835-2019-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4906">Model physics, and hence simulated cloud cover, are significantly different
between CAM4 and CAM5. Figure 11a shows the relative model difference in the
oxalate distribution between MIMI, which also includes an increase in the
tuning factor by an order of magnitude (from 15 to 150; Table 5), and BAM-Fe
by normalizing by the simulated cloud fraction in each model.
The effect of oxalate on iron dissolution is therefore larger in MIMI over
extratropical ocean regions, where iron models underrepresent solubility (Myriokefalitakis
et al., 2018), and land regions which are dense in tropical vegetation or
industry (both centres of large aerosol precursor gas emissions). Compared
to observations (Myriokefalitakis et al.,
2011; Table S3) modelled oxalate concentrations are well represented at high
observed concentrations but are biased low when observed concentrations are
low (Fig. 11b). The low model bias is stronger within remote observational
regions (marine vs. urban observation sites), suggesting that the removal of
secondary organic aerosol may be too strong within the model and/or that
there is a missing marine aerosol precursor gas emission source (Facchini et al., 2008; O'Dowd and de Leeuw, 2007) in
this model which significantly lowers simulated secondary organic aerosol,
and thus oxalate, concentrations.</p>
      <p id="d1e4909">Comparison of mineral dust and pyrogenic sources of modelled soluble iron
(sum of emissions and atmospheric dissolution; Fig. 12) with the four iron
models (including BAM-Fe) reported by Myriokefalitakis et al. (2018) shows that
the spatial distribution in MIMI is broadly similar for<?pagebreak page3850?> most regions of the
world. A notable difference exists in the North Pacific region, where the
soluble iron source in MIMI is lower than all other iron models,
similar to total iron concentrations when compared to observations
(Figs. 4 and 5). Future development of MIMI should thus be focused on the
North Pacific, including the addition of shipping soluble iron emissions,
which are relatively concentrated in this region (Ito, 2013). An improvement for MIMI can be seen
over the Atlantic region directly downwind of Saharan soluble iron sources.
In general, iron models are overrepresenting iron solubility close to dust
sources compared to observations (Myriokefalitakis
et al., 2018), and in order for BAM-Fe to reach better agreement with
observed iron solubility in this region dust emissions of soluble iron had
to be scaled downwards (Conway et al.,
2019). We suggest that this improvement is linked to the improved modal
representation of aerosol pH in MIMI (Fig. 10).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12"><?xmltex \currentcnt{12}?><label>Figure 12</label><caption><p id="d1e4914">Annual mean dust and pyrogenic (sum of fires and anthropogenic
combustion) soluble iron source (i.e. sum of emissions and atmospheric
processing).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3835/2019/gmd-12-3835-2019-f12.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <label>4.3</label><title>Iron ocean deposition flux comparison</title>
      <p id="d1e4931">Similar to the previous study by Scanza et al. (2018), we report the amount of total and
soluble iron deposited in each of the major ocean basins (Table 8) as
defined by Gregg et al. (2003). We find that in
MIMI the amount of total iron deposited to all ocean basins is approximately
double that estimated in BAM-Fe (26 vs. 12 Tg Fe a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively),
while soluble iron deposition is similar (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5 Tg Fe a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
in both models). The larger mineral dust emission flux in MIMI (3200 Tg dust a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> compared to BAM-Fe dust emissions of 1800 Tg dust a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) is
driving most of the increases in total iron deposition because it is the
primary iron source (Table 7). In general, the magnitude of soluble iron
deposition to the oceans is more evenly distributed across hemispheres in
MIMI owing to a major reduction (approximately one-half) in the equatorial
north–central Atlantic basin deposition flux and increases to SH ocean
deposition fluxes of a factor of 2 to 4. In MAM4 dust is treated as
internally mixed aerosol with sea salt, leading to higher rates of wet
deposition than when dust is externally mixed aerosol (Liu
et al., 2012) as it is in CAM4. The internally mixed treatment of dust
aerosol in MAM4 is thus an important factor leading to the lower simulated
dust lifetime when compared to BAM-Fe (Table S2). Over the north–central
Atlantic region, the combination of a lower soluble iron source (Fig. 12
compared to Fig. S4b by Myriokefalitakis et al., 2018), dust
atmospheric lifetime (Table S2), lower aerosol pH (Fig. 10), and lower
relative organic ligand processing (Fig. 11) will all work towards reducing
the magnitude of atmospheric soluble iron deposition flux in MAM4 compared
to BAM-Fe. There are significant increases in anthropogenic combustion iron
deposition in all equatorial and NH ocean basins driven by the fivefold
increase in combustion emissions implemented in MIMI. The percent
contribution from pyrogenic iron to total iron deposition between MIMI and
BAM-Fe is, however, more similar for all northern and equatorial oceanic
regions than southern oceanic regions. Beyond the correction to
anthropogenic combustion emissions, which are NH dominated, this could be
due to differences in the emissions of both dust and fire aerosol,
structural differences between models relating to the aerosol size and
composition, which alters aerosol deposition rates, or a lower soluble iron
source (Fig. 12); it is most likely to be a combination of all three.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><label>Table 8</label><caption><p id="d1e4992">Global and regional ocean basin deposition (Gg a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) of total
and soluble iron in BAM-Fe (Scanza et al.,
2018) and MIMI (this study). Deposition was multiplied by the ocean fraction
of model grid cells and is reported at two significant figures. The percent
contribution from pyrogenic (sum of fires and anthropogenic combustion) iron
sources to deposition is also given. Ocean basins are those defined by Gregg et
al. (2003) and previously used by Scanza et al. (2018).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="9">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col5" align="center" colsep="1">Dust and comb. deposition; Gg a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col6" nameend="col9" align="center">Percent iron from pyrogenic sources; % </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center" colsep="1">Total iron </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col4" nameend="col5" align="center" colsep="1">Soluble iron </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col6" nameend="col7" align="center" colsep="1">Total iron </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col8" nameend="col9" align="center">Soluble iron </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">BAM-Fe</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">MIMI</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">BAM-Fe</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">MIMI</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">BAM-Fe</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">MIMI</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">BAM-Fe</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">MIMI</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Global</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">12 000</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">26 000</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">500</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">530</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">3.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">5.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">7.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">23</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">N. Atlantic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1800</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5300</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">46</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">86</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">2.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">4.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">11</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">N. Pacific</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">730</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1200</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">35</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">36</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">43</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NC. Atlantic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2900</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5700</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">92</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">89</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.30</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.52</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">3.7</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NC. Pacific</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">230</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">300</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">7.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">56</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">N. Indian</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2700</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7000</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">62</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">101</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">2.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">3.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">10</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Eq. Atlantic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2600</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2600</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">190</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">95</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">9.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">5.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">34</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Eq. Pacific</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">59</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">91</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">6.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">6.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">21</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">37</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">68</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Eq. Indian</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">830</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1200</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">35</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">39</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">38</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">S. Atlantic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">65</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">790</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">4.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">30</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">25</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">S. Pacific</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">21</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">250</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">6.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">41</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">7.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">30</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">S. Indian</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">42</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">200</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">6.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">51</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">58</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">46</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Antarctic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">270</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1300</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">37</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">48</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">44</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e5512">The fraction of fire aerosol which is injected above the boundary layer is
crucial for determining its capacity for long-range transport (e.g. Turquety et al., 2007).
Vertically distributing fire iron emissions in MIMI, as compared to emitting
all iron from fires at the surface as in BAM-Fe, increases the long-range
transport of iron aerosol to remote<?pagebreak page3851?> ocean regions (Fig. 13). In general,
vertically distributing fire emissions results in small increases in soluble
iron deposition (between 0 % and 20 %) in SH ocean regions and a larger
increase (between 20 % and 40 %) in NH oceans, with converse lower land
deposition close to the major regions of fire activity. The exception is
in the sub-Arctic North Pacific, an HNLC region, where iron deposition from
fires significantly increased until it was more than double that when surface
fire emissions are used.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F13"><?xmltex \currentcnt{13}?><label>Figure 13</label><caption><p id="d1e5518">The ratio of soluble iron deposition from fires when emissions
are emitted with a vertical distribution to fires when
emissions are only at the surface (i.e. vertical <inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> surface). Single year
(2007) comparison only.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3835/2019/gmd-12-3835-2019-f13.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e5534">The dry deposition flux is sensitive to aerosol properties, surface
roughness, and modelled turbulence. Although increasing the vertical
resolution has been shown to increase surface PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration (Menut et al., 2013) and better
simulate the dust vertical profile (Teixeira et al., 2016), it is not yet
clear if this would correspondingly increase the dry deposition flux.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3.SSSx1" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Source region comparison</title>
      <p id="d1e5551">The eight regions in Fig. 14 are chosen based on 10 (one for each region in
Fig. 1) simulations undertaken using the modified version of BAM-Fe
described in Sect. 2.6. The emission region (Fig. 1) with the
highest fractional contribution to the total soluble deposition flux in each
grid cell was<?pagebreak page3852?> examined, and from this the boundaries of each region in Fig. 14 were delineated. The resulting eight ocean iron deposition regions are split
equally into four in the NH and four in the SH. Note, however, that the
NH–SH divide sits at 15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S and not the Equator, which is
due to transport differences in each hemisphere and the position of the
Intertropical Convergence Zone. Of the four regions that can be defined as major dust deposition receptors (Fig. 14; bottom panel bar chart), the
north Indian Ocean (no. 1), North Atlantic and central Pacific (no. 4), and
South American dust (no. 7) regions have a single dominant source each, while
the North Pacific (no. 3) region is more variable. These dust-dominated iron
deposition regions are similarly reproduced by other global iron models (Ito et
al., 2019; Myriokefalitakis et al., 2018). The regions of the mixed Southern
Hemisphere oceans (no. 5) and Australian and South Pacific (no. 6) receive
similar amounts of mineral dust and pyrogenic iron, suggesting that the iron
sources are spatially closer and thus share much more similar transport
pathways than the South East Asian ocean (no. 2) and South American pyrogenic
(no. 8) regions, which have a much more distinct pyrogenic iron source
signal. Deposition regions are more clearly defined when using this
methodology compared to those from a more traditional classification of
ocean basins based on physio-geographical oceanography (Fig. S4). This
information can be used to assess which ocean regions are most likely to be
affected by anthropogenic perturbations to the magnitude of iron sources
within different regions, whether through land use, land cover change, or
industrialization.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F14"><?xmltex \currentcnt{14}?><label>Figure 14</label><caption><p id="d1e5565"><bold>(a)</bold> Eight soluble iron ocean deposition regions defined by
dominant source region apportionment. Region 1: north Indian Ocean (NIND).
Region 2: South East Asian ocean (SEAS). Region 3: North Pacific (NPAC).
Region 4: North Atlantic and central Pacific (NACP). Region 5: Southern
Hemisphere oceans (SHOC). Region 6: Australian and southern Pacific (AUSP). Region 7:
South American dust (SADU). Region 8: South American pyrogenic (SAPY). <bold>(b)</bold> Contribution of each emission source region (Fig. 1) to the total iron
deposition across the region. Contributions of dust and pyrogenic (sum of
fires and anthropogenic combustion) iron from the source region are also shown.
Regions contributing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % are filtered out.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3835/2019/gmd-12-3835-2019-f14.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e5589">The variability in the daily soluble iron deposition flux to each of the
eight ocean regions, as seen in Fig. 14, is much larger in MIMI than it is
in BAM-Fe (Fig. 15), reaching over 10 orders of magnitude between the
minimum and maximum flux in many regions. This is due in part to the
increased variability in fire emissions, which was improved in MIMI to track
the BC emitted from fires, and switching from the offline soil erodibility
map used in BAM-Fe to the Kok et al. (2014a) physically based emission
parametrization used in MIMI. Anthropogenic combustion emissions<?pagebreak page3853?> are
temporally static in both model frameworks and therefore do not affect the
variability in this study as much as fires and mineral dust but will in the
future if this is changed to represent a seasonal emission cycle. We can see
that each of the dust and fire updates in MIMI have a large impact by
comparing the Patagonian dust-dominated South American dust (SADU) region and
the fire-dominated South American pyrogenic (SAPY) region. Most of the dust
deposited (30 % to 90 %) in the ocean occurs during large dust events that
are on just 5 % of the days (Mahowald et al.,
2009), resulting in large differences between median and mean deposition
amounts in all regions, as seen in Fig. 15. It is important to note that the
mean is always above the interquartile range, further supporting our
previous arguments pertaining to the modelled mean not being an ideal
estimate of the average as it does not represent the log-normal distribution
of aerosol. Comparing the mean-to-median ratio suggests that extreme dust
events are also more pronounced in MIMI (CAM5) than in BAM-Fe (CAM4).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F15"><?xmltex \currentcnt{15}?><label>Figure 15</label><caption><p id="d1e5595">Violin plots of 5 years of log<inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> daily soluble iron
deposition (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) within each grid cell for the eight
ocean regions defined in Fig. 14. Only grid cells in which ocean fraction
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are included in the analysis. Violin colour matches Fig. 1
region colour: north Indian Ocean (NIND); South East Asian ocean (SEAS);
North Pacific (NPAC); North Atlantic and central Pacific (NACP); Southern
Hemisphere oceans (SHOC); Australian and southern Pacific (AUSP); South
American dust (SADU); South American pyrogenic (SAPY). Violin outline
colours: blue lines: BAM results, orange lines: MAM results.
Black cross: log<inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> mean daily soluble iron deposition. Median,
mean, and ratio (mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> median) values for all 5 years of daily deposition amounts across each basin are also given.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3835/2019/gmd-12-3835-2019-f15.png"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <label>5</label><title>Future directions</title>
      <p id="d1e5683">The purpose of model-to-observation comparisons is to identify situations
(regions, times, model settings, or combinations thereof) in which the model
output is inconsistent with observed realities, with the goal being to
further refine the model in the future. Each individual observation
represents a snapshot of the atmospheric state at a specific point in space
and time, and when an observation falls outside the distribution of model
output values from the same location and time, we can view this as evidence
of a model misspecification. For the example of iron modelling, constraining
current model–observation discrepancies would benefit from further exploring
the model sensitivity of simulated iron and its solubility to uncertainties
in five major parameter sets: dust iron emissions, pyrogenic iron emissions,
atmospheric iron dissolution chemistry, dry deposition rates, and wet
deposition rates. In general, improving the modelled representation of
secondary organic aerosol (including oxalate) and aerosol pH, particularly
for remote regions, is an important task for aerosol modelling and one which
would have co-benefits for iron aerosol modelling. Comparisons of the soluble
fraction of other aerosol species with observations could also be used to
guide model development.</p>
      <p id="d1e5686">Here we discuss some of the model parameters which are likely important for
improving modelled iron emissions and deposition in MIMI, and thus iron
process models in general, in the future.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1">
  <label>5.1</label><title>Improving iron aerosol emissions</title>
      <p id="d1e5696">Downwind of significant mineral dust sources iron models generally
overestimate the observed amount of total iron (Myriokefalitakis
et al., 2018), and soluble iron comparisons are highly sensitive to the
assumed initial solubility of mineral dust iron at emission (Conway et al., 2019). Conversely, in
remote ocean regions, improving the representation of combustion emissions
has been shown to be a necessary step towards more accurate representations
of observed high iron solubilities at low iron concentrations (Ito et al., 2019).</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1.SSS1">
  <label>5.1.1</label><title>Mineral dust iron aerosol emissions</title>
      <p id="d1e5706">In Fig. 4 the high model estimates of total iron, compared to observations,
downwind of North African mineral dust sources could be due to uncertainties
in the magnitude of hematite emissions within the model. Hematite contains
by far the largest fraction of iron of any mineral in MIMI (Table 3), with a
major source in the Sahel (Fig. S5). The Sahel<?pagebreak page3854?> is a borderline dust source,
and emissions from this region have been shown to be sensitive to different
model dynamics, even when forced with reanalysis winds, for example between
CAM4 and CAM5 (Scanza et
al., 2015). Other studies have shown a large sensitivity of dust generation
to the details of the soil erodibility map (e.g. Cakmur et al., 2006).
For CAM5 with the DEAD emissions scheme, Scanza et al. (2015) showed that
improvements in estimating the direct radiative forcing of mineral dust
could be achieved by assuming that hematite is only emitted from clay
minerals and not silt, with an effective reduction of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % from
the coarse-mode emission of hematite. Although MIMI has employed an updated
dust emission scheme (Table 1;
Kok et al., 2014a) the model is still sensitive to assumptions within the
offline mineralogy maps and applications of the brittle fragmentation theory
therein. For instance, the single-scattering albedo, which is a critical
parameter in estimating the direct radiative forcing (e.g. Di Biagio et al., 2009), becomes more comparable
to observations (Kim et
al., 2011) if the same assumption as in Scanza et al. (2015) is applied (Fig. S6). Quantifying the uncertainty on the climate response to different
assumptions in mineralogy and dust emissions, and any reanalysis meteorology
driving them, is therefore an important task.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1.SSS2">
  <label>5.1.2</label><title>Pyrogenic iron aerosol emissions</title>
      <p id="d1e5727">Matsui et al. (2018) recently showed that
combustion iron emissions have been underestimated in current models. One
possible reason for this underestimate is that the anthropogenic combustion iron
emissions from Luo et al. (2008) are for 1996. Taking
steel-making and coal consumption (which are also linked to iron emissions)
as a proxy for economic development (Ghosh, 2006; Lee and Chang,
2008) shows that growth in these sectors boomed exponentially post-2000,
particularly in Asia and India (Ghosh, 2006; Lee and Chang,
2008). Therefore, 1996 emissions do not capture recent industrial
developments, and updating the anthropogenic combustion iron emission
inventory for use in the 21st century is a critical next step.</p>
      <p id="d1e5730">During a fire, the iron contained in leaves and wood (Price,
1968) will be released to the atmosphere along with the iron contained in the
surrounding soil, whether entrained from the ground due to pyro-convective
updrafts (Wagner et al., 2018) or through a
remobilization of terrigenous particles which have previously been deposited
onto vegetation (Gaudichet et al.,
1995; Paris et al., 2010). All sources are subsequently internally mixed
within the smoke plume before any downwind observation occurs.
Differentiating the iron contribution from biomass which is burnt to
that from entrained dust was not considered in any of the studies in
Table 4 but would be required to define the correct mineralogy and
solubility of iron from fires. If we assume that biomass contains low
concentrations of iron relative to the surrounding soils then we could
expect a difference in observed Fe : BC ratios between a cerrado (savannah)
environment, where surrounding soils are dry and dust is easily mobilized,
compared to a tropical environment, where soils are wet and dust is not as
easily mobilized. But we do not see this in Table 4, and both regions have a
similar range which spans around 2 orders of magnitude from low to high.
However, no concrete conclusions can be drawn from such a limited dataset,
so more observations are needed to distinguish which source (biomass or
dust) is contributing most to the iron measured downwind of fires.</p>
      <p id="d1e5733">The physical, chemical, and biological properties of the underlying soil are
also impacted by fires (Certini, 2005) and it can be
years after the fire has occurred until a return to the pre-fire state is
achieved. For example, the removal of vegetation and the surface crust by
fires from dune regions will create a new opportunity for dust mobilization (Strong et al., 2010), and higher-intensity fires can also increase the erodibility of soils and the availability
of fine particles through breaking down the soil structure (Levin et al., 2012). Furthermore, under
high temperatures the fire can transform the underlying soil mineralogy,
with iron decreases in clay minerals and increases in magnetic iron oxide
minerals (Crockford
and Willett, 2001; Ketterings et al., 2000; Ulery and Graham, 1993). The
amount of dust emitted from post-fire landscapes is potentially very
significant, with Wagenbrenner et al. (2017) estimating that an extra 12–352 Tg of dust as PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (40 % of which was estimated to be PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) was
emitted to the atmosphere in 2012 from post-fire landscapes in the western
US alone. The impact of fires on total and soluble iron emissions in dust
from within post-burn regions is also likely to be different but requires
further study, although it likely depends on the fire regime and the time since
the fire occurred.</p>
      <p id="d1e5754">The most advanced iron processing models currently consider industrial,
domestic, wildfire, and shipping pyrogenic emissions (Myriokefalitakis
et al., 2018). An emerging discussion is on the importance of volcanic ash and
the iron it contains for ocean biogeochemistry (Langmann,
2013). Figures 4 through 7 show that MIMI underrepresents both total iron
and its solubility in the remote extratropical Pacific where volcanic
emissions may be an important missing iron source. Future understanding of
volcanic iron sources is potentially important as once deposited to the
ocean, particularly in regions that are iron limited or seasonally
iron limited, volcanic inputs have been shown to alter satellite chlorophyll (Hamme et al., 2010;
Rogan et al., 2016) and the drawdown of macronutrients (Lindenthal et al., 2013). The volume of metals
released by a volcano is subject to many uncertainties, including both the
nature of the volcano and its eruption type and strength, leading to
estimates which can vary by many orders of magnitude (Mather
et al., 2006, 2012). To date most studies have focused on ocean inputs from
shorter-term explosive eruptions rather than continuous inputs from
quiescent passive degassing volcanoes which are likely to be most important
only for the central Pacific region downwind<?pagebreak page3855?> of volcanoes located within the
“ring of fire” (Olgun et al., 2011).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2">
  <label>5.2</label><title>Aerosol deposition</title>
      <p id="d1e5766">An examination of aerosol dry deposition in CAM5 by Wu et al. (2018) showed that
the deposition velocity for Aitken- and accumulation-sized BC particles is
potentially an order of magnitude too high. It is highly likely that this
will also be the case for dust. As the largest discrepancies between models
and observations are in remote ocean regions, improving the model long-range
transport of iron by investigating deposition rates is an important
constraint to be applied to the model.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>6</label><title>Conclusion</title>
      <p id="d1e5778">It is important to accurately model the atmospheric iron cycle because of
the impacts of iron on human health, ocean biogeochemistry, and climate.
Atmospheric iron process modelling suitable for use in global climate and
Earth system modelling is a new model development area, and as such
it is currently undergoing rapid development. Here we have detailed the
development of the Mechanism of Intermediate complexity for Modelling Iron
(MIMI v1.0) such that it now represents iron emissions, atmospheric
processing, and deposition within a global modal aerosol microphysics
framework.</p>
      <p id="d1e5781">The solubility of iron depends on the underlying aerosol iron properties,
such as dust mineralogy and combustion fuel type, and the degree to which
dissolution from an insoluble to soluble iron form has occurred in the
atmosphere. Which of these is the dominant factor for describing the
observed inverse relationship between the solubility of iron to the total
iron mass is currently unknown (Mahowald et al.,
2018). Updating the mineral dust emission scheme to a physically based
parameterization, however, has improved model performance by increasing total
iron close to mineral dust sources, where solubility is observed to be low
(Figs. 4 through 7). Updating pyrogenic iron emissions from fires increases
the long-range transport of soluble iron to remote ocean regions, where
observed solubility is higher (Figs. 4 through 7), while increasing
anthropogenic combustion iron emissions by a factor of 5 brings the total
in line with more recent evaluations of their magnitude (Conway et al.,
2019; Matsui et al., 2018). Emission updates have also increased the
variability in soluble iron deposition (Fig. 15). Improvements to the
atmospheric iron processing scheme in MIMI also increase iron dissolution in
more remote regions relative to mineral dust sources, again in line with
observations.</p>
      <p id="d1e5784">Comparisons with observations (Figs. 4 through 7) show that in general MIMI
simulates total iron concentrations well. However, comparison of modelled
iron solubility to observations reveals that while the model captures many
regional features, some are missed. It is unclear, however, whether this
problem arises from the model or observational representation of the system
owing to the insufficient number of observations available to build a
robust observational result for such a highly variable quantity in the Earth
system, even when aggregating over small regional scales. There are
significant differences in calculating iron solubility based on the order of
the averaging operation. When calculating at each model time step, global
annual mean iron solubility is one-third (34 %; NH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 40 %, SH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 29 %)
higher than when calculated from monthly mean values. Earth system models
are designed to integrate land–atmosphere–ocean–ice components at each
time step and could thus yield different results based on the coupling
time step length employed. Furthermore, the mean is shown not to be an
accurate representation of the average atmospheric state due to the
non-Gaussian distribution of aerosol concentrations. In many regions, however,
there are just a few (fewer than five) observations, often only one,
so while the use of the median is robust with respect to extreme values, a
limited observational dataset cannot truly discriminate if extreme values
are outliers or the norm. Use of the mean also significantly
overestimates the average atmospheric soluble iron deposition to the ocean
and is always larger than the upper quartile of the distribution in daily
deposition. However, this bias may be tempered due to ocean biogeochemistry
processes likely being relevant over timescales which are longer than those
in the atmosphere. Future work will need to consider how best to compare
models to sporadic observations, potentially making use of distributions
rather than a more limited absolute average.</p>
      <p id="d1e5801">The main sources of soluble iron deposition vary both between and within
ocean basins. The redefinition of ocean basins based on the dominate iron
deposition source, rather than a traditional physio-geographical ocean
basis, can therefore aid in determining where continental anthropogenic
activity will have the greatest impact on ocean biogeochemistry and which
source region is linked to where model–observation comparisons are poor. For
example, modelling of total iron and its solubility in the South Atlantic
could be improved by further improving our understanding of industrial
combustion and fires within South America. Furthermore, soluble iron
deposition to Southern Hemisphere oceans in MIMI, whereby combustion and fire
emissions have a significant impact, is between a factor of 2 to 4
higher compared to BAM-Fe, which is the model simulating the largest
atmospheric fluxes to the ocean of the comparable models studied in
Myriokefalitakis et al. (2018). As
integrated Earth system models develop in the future, taking a holistic view
to understanding how dust and fires are coupled in terms of feedbacks on
iron emissions is an important step for predicting how future changes in
climate will alter the Earth system response to human
perturbations of the natural system.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="codedataavailability"><title>Code and data availability</title>

      <?pagebreak page3856?><p id="d1e5808">Model code (emissions and atmospheric processing for MIMI v1.0) and data are
available at <uri>http://www.geo.cornell.edu/eas/PeoplePlaces/Faculty/mahowald/dust/Hamiltonetal2019/</uri> (last access: 17 June 2019).
Observational iron data are available from Mahowald et al. (2009) and Myriokefalitakis et al. (2018).
Observational oxalate data are available from Myriokefalitakis et al. (2011).</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e5814">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3835-2019-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3835-2019-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e5823">DSH developed MIMI, which incorporates model code previously developed by
RAS, YF, JFK, XL, and MW. DSH undertook all model simulations
and wrote the paper with support from NMM, JG, and SDR. DSH
prepared all figures and tables apart from Fig. 1 and Table S1 (JSW),
Figs. S3 and S6 (LL), and Figs. 9 and S2 (SDR). All authors edited
the paper text.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e5829">The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e5835">This work was supported by Department of Energy (DE) and National Science
Foundation (NSF) grants for atmospheric deposition impacts on ocean
biogeochemistry (DE-Sc0016362; NSF 1049033). Douglas S. Hamilton was also supported by the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future. Jasper F. Kok acknowledges support from NSF grant 1552519. Sagar D. Rathod would like to thank the Collaborative Proposal Fire Dust Air and Water Improving Aerosol Biogeochemistry Interactions in ACME for supporting his
Masters. Xiaohong Liu and Mingxuan Wu are grateful for the support of the NASA CloudSat and
CALIPSO Science Program (grant NNX16AO94G). We would like to acknowledge
high-performance computing support from Cheyenne (<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5065/D6RX99HX" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5065/D6RX99HX</ext-link>; Computational and Information Systems Laboratory, 2017) provided by NCAR's Computational and Information
Systems Laboratory, sponsored by the National Science Foundation. We are grateful to both referees for their constructive input.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e5843">This research has been supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (grant no. DE-Sc0016362), the National Science Foundation (grant nos. NSF-1049033 and 1552519), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (grant no. NNX16AO94G), and the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e5849">This paper was edited by Havala Pye and reviewed by two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Achterberg, E. P., Moore, C. M., Henson, S. A., Steigenberger, S., Stohl,
A., Eckhardt, S., Avendano, L. C., Cassidy, M., Hembury, D., Klar, J. K.,
Lucas, M. I., Macey, A. I., Marsay, C. M., and Ryan-Keogh, Thomas, J.:
Natural iron ferlilisation by the Eyjafjallajokull volcanic eruption,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 921–926, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50221" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/grl.50221</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Akagi, S. K., Yokelson, R. J., Wiedinmyer, C., Alvarado, M. J., Reid, J. S., Karl, T., Crounse, J. D., and Wennberg, P. O.: Emission factors for open and domestic biomass burning for use in atmospheric models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 4039–4072, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-4039-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-4039-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Albani, S., Mahowald, N. M., Perry, A. T., Scanza, R. A., Zender, C. S.,
Heavens, N. G., Maggi, V., Kok, J. F., and Otto-Bliesner, B. L.: Improved
dust representation in the Community Atmosphere Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth
Sy., 6, 541–570, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013MS000279" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013MS000279</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Andreae, M. O. and Crutzen, P. J.: Atmospheric Aerosols: Biogeochemical
Sources and Role in Atmospheric Chemistry, Science, 276, 1052–1058,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.276.5315.1052" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.276.5315.1052</ext-link>, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Arimoto, R.: Eolian dust and climate: relationships to sources, tropospheric
chemistry, transport and deposition, Earth-Sci. Rev., 54, 29–42,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-8252(01)00040-X" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0012-8252(01)00040-X</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Artaxo, P., Rizzo, L. V., Brito, J. F., Barbosa, H. M. J., Arana, A., Sena,
E. T., Cirino, G. G., Bastos, W., Martin, S. T., and Andreae, M. O.:
Atmospheric aerosols in Amazonia and land use change: from natural biogenic
to biomass burning conditions, Faraday Discuss., 165, 203–235, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1039/c3fd00052d" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1039/c3fd00052d</ext-link>,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Aumont, O., Ethé, C., Tagliabue, A., Bopp, L., and Gehlen, M.: PISCES-v2: an ocean biogeochemical model for carbon and ecosystem studies, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 2465–2513, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2465-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-8-2465-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Baker, A. R., Jickells, T. D., Biswas, K. F., Weston, K., and French, M.:
Nutrients in atmospheric aerosol particles along the Atlantic Meridional
Transect, Deep-Sea Res. Pt. II, 53,
1706–1719, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2006.05.012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.dsr2.2006.05.012</ext-link>, 2006a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Baker, A. R., Jickells, T. D., Witt, M., and Linge, K. L.: Trends in the
solubility of iron, aluminium, manganese and phosphorus in aerosol collected
over the Atlantic Ocean, Mar. Chem., 98, 43–58,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marchem.2005.06.004" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.marchem.2005.06.004</ext-link>, 2006b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Bates, T. S., Lamb, B. K., Guenther, A., Dignon, J., and Stoiber, R. E.:
Sulfur Emissions to the Atmosphere from Natural Sources, J. Atmos. Chem.,
14, 315–337, 1992.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Böke, H., Göktürk, E. H., Caner-Saltýk, E. N., and Demirci,
Þ.: Effect of airborne particle on SO2–calcite reaction, Appl. Surf.
Sci., 140, 70–82, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-4332(98)00468-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0169-4332(98)00468-1</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Boyd, P. W., Jickells, T., Law, C. S., Blain, S., Boyle, E. A., Buesseler,
K. O., Coale, K. H., Cullen, J. J., Baar, H. J. W. De, Follows, M., Harvey,
M., Lancelot, C., Levasseur, M., Owens, N. P. J., Pollard, R., Rivkin, R.
B., Sarmiento, J., Schoemann, V., Smetacek, V., Takeda, S., Tsuda, A.,
Turner, S., and Watson, A. J.: Mesoscale Iron Enrichment Experiments 1993 –
2005: Synthesis and Future Directions, Science, 315, 612–618, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bullard, J. E.: The distribution and biogeochemical importance of
highlatitude dust in the Arctic and Souther<?pagebreak page3857?>n Ocean-Antarctic regions, J.
Geophys. Res., 122, 3098–3103, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD026363" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016JD026363</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bullard, J. E., Baddock, M., Bradwell, T., Crusius, J., Darlington, E.,
Gaiero, D., Gassó, S., Gisladottir, G., Hodgkins, R., McCulloch, R.,
McKenna-Neuman, C., Mockford, T., Stewart, H., and Thorsteinsson, T.:
High-latitude dust in the Earth system, Rev. Geophys., 54, 447–485,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016RG000518" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016RG000518</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Cakmur, R. V., Miller, R. L., Perlwitz, J., Geogdzhayev, I. V., Ginoux, P.,
Koch, D., Kohfeld, K. E., Tegen, I., and Zender, C. S.: Constraining the
magnitude of the global dust cycle by minimizing the difference between a
model and observations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 111, 1–24,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD005791" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005JD005791</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Capone, D., Zehr, J., Paerl, H., Bergman, B., and Carpenter, E.:
Trichodesmium, a globallly significant marine cyanobacterium, Science, 276, 1221–1229, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Certini, G.: Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: A review,
Oecologia, 143, 1–10, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1788-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00442-004-1788-8</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chin, M. and Jacob, D. J.: Anthropogenic and natural contributions to
tropospheric sulfate: A global model analysis, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
101, 18691–18699, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/96JD01222" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/96JD01222</ext-link>, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chuang, P. Y., Duvall, R. M., Shafer, M. M., and Schauer, J. J.: The origin
of water soluble particulate iron in the Asian atmospheric outflow, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 32, 1–4, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL021946" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004GL021946</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Claquin, T., Schulz, M., and Balkanski, Y. J.: Modeling the Minerology of
Atmospheric Dust Sources, J. Geophys. Res. Res., 104, 22243–22256,
1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Computational and Information Systems Laboratory: Cheyenne: HPE/SGI ICE XA
System (University Community Computing), Boulder, CO Natl. Cent. Atmos.
Res., <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5065/D6RX99HX" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5065/D6RX99HX</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Conway, T. M., Hamilton, D. S., Shelley, R. U., Aguilar-Islas, A. M.,
Landing, W. M., Mahowald, N. M., and John, S. G.: Tracing and constraining
anthropogenic aerosol iron fluxes to the North Atlantic Ocean using iron
isotopes, Nat. Commun., 10, 1–10, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10457-w" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41467-019-10457-w</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Cornell, R. and Schindler, P.: Photochemical dissolution of goethite in
acid/oxalate solution, Clays Clay Miner., 35, 347–352,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1346/CCMN.1987.0350504" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1346/CCMN.1987.0350504</ext-link>, 1987.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Crockford, R. H. and Willett, I. R.: Application of mineral magnetism to
describe profile development of toposequences of a sedimentary soil in
south-eastern Australia, Aust. J. Soil Res., 39, 927–949,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1071/SR00077" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1071/SR00077</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Crusius, J., Schroth, A. W., Gassó, S., Moy, C. M., Levy, R. C., and
Gatica, M.: Glacial flour dust storms in the Gulf of Alaska: Hydrologic and
meteorological controls and their importance as a source of bioavailable
iron, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L06602, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL046573" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010GL046573</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dentener, F., Kinne, S., Bond, T., Boucher, O., Cofala, J., Generoso, S., Ginoux, P., Gong, S., Hoelzemann, J. J., Ito, A., Marelli, L., Penner, J. E., Putaud, J.-P., Textor, C., Schulz, M., van der Werf, G. R., and Wilson, J.: Emissions of primary aerosol and precursor gases in the years 2000 and 1750 prescribed data-sets for AeroCom, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 4321–4344, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-4321-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-4321-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Di Biagio, C., Di Sarra, A., Meloni, D., Monteleone, F., Piacentino, S., and
Sferlazzo, D.: Measurements of Mediterranean aerosol radiative forcing and
influence of the single scattering albedo, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 114,
1–12, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011037" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JD011037</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Duce, R. and Tindale, N.: Atmospheric transport of iron and its deposition
in the ocean, Limnol. Oceanogr., 36, 1715–1726, 1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Facchini, M. C., Rinaldi, M., Decesari, S., Carbone, C., Finessi, E.,
Mircea, M., Fuzzi, S., Ceburnis, D., Flanagan, R., Nilsson, E. D., de Leeuw,
G., Martino, M., Woeltjen, J., and O'Dowd, C. D.: Primary submicron marine
aerosol dominated by insoluble organic colloids and aggregates, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 35, 1–5, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL034210" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008GL034210</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fanourgakis, G. S., Kanakidou, M., Nenes, A., Bauer, S. E., Bergman, T., Carslaw, K. S., Grini, A., Hamilton, D. S., Johnson, J. S., Karydis, V. A., Kirkevåg, A., Kodros, J. K., Lohmann, U., Luo, G., Makkonen, R., Matsui, H., Neubauer, D., Pierce, J. R., Schmale, J., Stier, P., Tsigaridis, K., van Noije, T., Wang, H., Watson-Parris, D., Westervelt, D. M., Yang, Y., Yoshioka, M., Daskalakis, N., Decesari, S., Gysel-Beer, M., Kalivitis, N., Liu, X., Mahowald, N. M., Myriokefalitakis, S., Schrödner, R., Sfakianaki, M., Tsimpidi, A. P., Wu, M., and Yu, F.: Evaluation of global simulations of aerosol particle and cloud condensation nuclei number, with implications for cloud droplet formation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 8591–8617, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-8591-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-19-8591-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Fung, I., Meyn, S. K., Tegen, I., Doney, S., John, J., and Bishop, J.: Iron
supply and demand in the upper ocean, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 14,
281–295, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gaudichet, A., Echalar, F., Chatenet, B., Quisefit, J. P., Malingre, G.,
Cachier, H., Buat-Menard, P., Artaxo, P., and Maenhaut, W.: Trace elements in
tropical African savanna biomass burning aerosols, J. Atmos. Chem.,
22, 19–39, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00708179" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/BF00708179</ext-link>, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gettelman, A., Liu, X., Ghan, S. J., Morrison, H., Park, S., Conley, A. J.,
Klein, S. A., Boyle, J., Mitchell, D. L., and Li, J. L. F.: Global
simulations of ice nucleation and ice supersaturation with an improved cloud
scheme in the Community Atmosphere Model, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 115,
1–19, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013797" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009JD013797</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ghosh, S.: Steel consumption and economic growth: Evidence from India,
Resour. Policy, 31, 7–11, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2006.03.005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.resourpol.2006.03.005</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Giglio, L., Randerson, J. T., and van der Werf, G. R.: Analysis of daily,
monthly, and annual burned area using the fourth-generation global fire
emissions database (GFED4), J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 118,
317–328, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrg.20042" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/jgrg.20042</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Golaz, J., Caldwell, P. M., Roekel, L. P. Van, Petersen, M. R., Tang, Q.,
Wolfe, J. D., Abeshu, G., Anantharaj, V., Asay-davis, X. S., Bader, D. C.,
Baldwin, S. A., Bisht, G., Bogenschutz, P. A., Branstetter, M., Brunke, M.
A., Brus, S. R., Burrows, S. M., Cameron-smith, P. J., Donahue, A. S.,
Deakin, M., Easter, R. C., Evans, K. J., Feng, Y., Flanner, M., Foucar, J.
G., Fyke, J. G., Hunke, E. C., Jacob, R. L., Jacobsen, D. W., Jeffery, N.,
Jones, P. W., Keen, N. D., Klein, S. A., Larson, V. E., Leung, L. R., Li,
H., Lin, W., Lipscomb, W. H., Ma, P., Mccoy, R. B., Neale, R. B., Price, S.
F., Qian, Y., Rasch, P. J., Eyre, J. E. J. R., Riley, W. J., Ringler, T. D.,
Roberts, A. F., Roesler, E. L., Salinger, A. G.<?pagebreak page3858?>, Shaheen, Z., Shi, X.,
Singh, B., Veneziani, M., Wan, H., Wang, H., Wang, S., Williams, D. N.,
Wolfram, P. J., Worley, P. H., Xie, S., Yang, Y., Yoon, J.-H., Zelinka, M.
D., Zender, C. S., Zeng, X., Zhang, C., Zhang, K., Zhang, Y., Zheng, X.,
Zhou, T., and Zhu, Q.: The DOE E3SM Coupled Model Version 1?: Overview and
Evaluation at Standard Resolution, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 1–41,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001603" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018MS001603</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gregg, W. W., Conkright, M. E., Ginoux, P., O'Reilly, J. E., and Casey, N.
W.: Ocean primary production and climate: Global decadal changes, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 30, 10–13, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL016889" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2003GL016889</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Guieu, C., Bonnet, S., Wagener, T., and Loÿe-Pilot, M. D.: Biomass
burning as a source of dissolved iron to the open ocean?, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 32, L19608, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL022962" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005GL022962</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Guieu, C., Aumont, O., Paytan, A., Bopp, L., Law, C. S., Mahowald, N.,
Achterberg, E. P., Marañón, E., Salihoglu, B., Crise, A., Wagener,
T., Herut, B., Desboeufs, K., Kanakidou, M., Olgun, N., Peters, F.,
Völker, C., Aumont, O., Paytan, A., Bopp, L., Law, C. S., Mahowald, N.,
Achterberg, E. P., Marañón, E., Salihoglu, B., Crise, A., Wagener,
T., Herut, B., Desboeufs, K., Kanakidou, M., Olgun, N., Peters, F., and
Völker, C.: Global Biogeochemical Cycles deposition to Low Nutrient Low
Chlorophyll regions, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 28, 1179–1198,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GB004852" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014GB004852</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hamme, R., Webley, P., Crawford, W., Whitney, F., DeGrandpre, M., Emerson,
S., Eriksen, C., Giesbrecht, K., Gower, J., Kavanaugh, M., Peña, M.,
Sabine, C., Batten, S., Coogan, L., Grundle, D., and Lockwood, D.: Volcanic
ash fuels anomalous plankton bloom in subarctic northeast Pacific, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 37, L19604, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL044629" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010GL044629</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Holben, B. N., Slutsker, T. I. E. I., Tar, D., Buis, J. P., Setxerj, I. I. A., Reagan, A., J, Y., Nakajima, T., Lavenu, F., Vemte, E., Jankowiak, I., Smirnozjt, A., Eck, T. F., Slutsker, I., Tanre, D., Buis, J. P., Setzer, A., Vermote, E., Reagan, J. A., Kaufman, Y. J., Nakajima, T., Lavenu, F., Jankowiak, I., and Smirnov, A.: AERONET-A federated instrument network and data archive for aerosol characterization, Remote Sens. Environ., 66, 1–16, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hu, M., Peng, J., Sun, K., Yue, D., Guo, S., Wiedensohler, A., and Wu, Z.:
Estimation of size-resolved ambient particle density based on the
measurement of aerosol number, mass, and chemical size distributions in the
winter in Beijing, Environ. Sci. Technol., 46, 9941–9947,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es204073t" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es204073t</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Huneeus, N., Schulz, M., Balkanski, Y., Griesfeller, J., Prospero, J., Kinne, S., Bauer, S., Boucher, O., Chin, M., Dentener, F., Diehl, T., Easter, R., Fillmore, D., Ghan, S., Ginoux, P., Grini, A., Horowitz, L., Koch, D., Krol, M. C., Landing, W., Liu, X., Mahowald, N., Miller, R., Morcrette, J.-J., Myhre, G., Penner, J., Perlwitz, J., Stier, P., Takemura, T., and Zender, C. S.: Global dust model intercomparison in AeroCom phase I, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 7781–7816, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7781-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-7781-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ingall, E., Feng, Y., Longo, A., Lai, B., Landing, W., Shelley, R., Morton,
P., Nenes, A., Violaki, K., Gao, Y., Sahai, S., and Castorina, E.: Enhanced
Iron Solubility at Low pH in Global Aerosols, Atmosphere-Basel, 9,
1–17, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos9050201" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/atmos9050201</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ito, A.: Global modeling study of potentially bioavailable iron input from
shipboard aerosol sources to the ocean, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 27,
1–10, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GB004378" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012GB004378</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ito, A.: Atmospheric processing of combustion aerosols as a source of
bioavailable iron, Environ. Sci. Tech. Let., 2, 70–75,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.5b00007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.estlett.5b00007</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ito, A. and Xu, L.: Response of acid mobilization of iron-containing mineral dust to improvement of air quality projected in the future, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 3441–3459, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-3441-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-3441-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ito, A., Myriokefalitakis, S., Kanakidou, M., Mahowald, N. M., Scanza, R.
A., Hamilton, D. S., Baker, A. R., Jickells, T., Sarin, M., Bikkina, S.,
Gao, Y., Shelley, R. U., Buck, C. S., Landing, W. M., Bowie, A. R., Perron,
M. M. G., Guieu, C., Meskhidze, N., Johnson, M. S., Feng, Y., Kok, J. F.,
Nenes, A., and Duce, R. A.: Pyrogenic iron: The missing link to high iron
solubility in aerosols, Sci. Adv., 5, 1–10, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau7671" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/sciadv.aau7671</ext-link>,
2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jickells, T. D., An, Z. S., Andersen, K. K., Baker, A. R., Bergametti, G.,
Brooks, N., Cao, J. J., Boyd, P. W., Duce, R. A., Hunter, K. A., Kawahata, H.,
Kubilay, N., LaRoche, J., Liss, P. S., Mahowald, N., Prospero, J. M.,
Ridgwell, A. J., Tegen, I., and Torres, R.: Global iron connections between
desert dust, ocean biogeochemistry, and climate, Science, 308,
67–71, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1105959" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1105959</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jickells, T. D., Boyd, P., and Hunter, K.: Biogeochemical impacts of dust on the
global carbon cycle, in Mineral Dust: A Key player in the Earth System,
edited by: Knippertz, P. and Stutt, J.-B., Springer Science<inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>
Business Media, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 284–359, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Johnson, M. S. and Meskhidze, N.: Atmospheric dissolved iron deposition to the global oceans: effects of oxalate-promoted Fe dissolution, photochemical redox cycling, and dust mineralogy, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 1137–1155, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-1137-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-6-1137-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Journet, E., Desbouefs, K., Caqineau, S., and Colin, J.-L.: Mineralogy as a
critical factor of dust iron solubility, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L07805,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL031589" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007GL031589</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kanakidou, M., Seinfeld, J. H., Pandis, S. N., Barnes, I., Dentener, F. J., Facchini, M. C., Van Dingenen, R., Ervens, B., Nenes, A., Nielsen, C. J., Swietlicki, E., Putaud, J. P., Balkanski, Y., Fuzzi, S., Horth, J., Moortgat, G. K., Winterhalter, R., Myhre, C. E. L., Tsigaridis, K., Vignati, E., Stephanou, E. G., and Wilson, J.: Organic aerosol and global climate modelling: a review, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 1053–1123, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-1053-2005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-5-1053-2005</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ketterings, Q. M., Bigham, J. M., and Laperche, V.: Changes in Soil
Mineralogy and Texture Caused by Slash-and-Burn Fires in Sumatra, Indonesia,
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 64, 1108–1117, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2000.6431108x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2136/sssaj2000.6431108x</ext-link>,
2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kim, D., Chin, M., Yu, H., Eck, T. F., Sinyuk, A., Smirnov, A., and Holben, B. N.: Dust optical properties over North Africa and Arabian Peninsula derived from the AERONET dataset, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 10733–10741, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-10733-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-10733-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kok, J. F.: A scaling theory for the size distribution of emitted dust
aerosols suggests climate models underestimate the size of the global dust
cycle, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 1016–1021,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014798108" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.1014798108</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page3859?><ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kok, J. F., Mahowald, N. M., Fratini, G., Gillies, J. A., Ishizuka, M., Leys, J. F., Mikami, M., Park, M.-S., Park, S.-U., Van Pelt, R. S., and Zobeck, T. M.: An improved dust emission model – Part 1: Model description and comparison against measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 13023–13041, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13023-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-13023-2014</ext-link>, 2014a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kok, J. F., Albani, S., Mahowald, N. M., and Ward, D. S.: An improved dust emission model – Part 2: Evaluation in the Community Earth System Model, with implications for the use of dust source functions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 13043–13061, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13043-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-13043-2014</ext-link>, 2014b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kok, J. F., Ridley, D. A., Zhou, Q., Miller, R. L., Zhao, C., Heald, C. L.,
Ward, D. S., Albani, S., and Haustein, K.: Smaller desert dust cooling effect
estimated from analysis of dust size and abundance, Nat. Geosci., 10,
274–278, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2912" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ngeo2912</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lamarque, J.-F., Bond, T. C., Eyring, V., Granier, C., Heil, A., Klimont, Z., Lee, D., Liousse, C., Mieville, A., Owen, B., Schultz, M. G., Shindell, D., Smith, S. J., Stehfest, E., Van Aardenne, J., Cooper, O. R., Kainuma, M., Mahowald, N., McConnell, J. R., Naik, V., Riahi, K., and van Vuuren, D. P.: Historical (1850–2000) gridded anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions of reactive gases and aerosols: methodology and application, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 7017–7039, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-7017-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-7017-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Langmann, B.: Volcanic Ash versus Mineral Dust: Atmospheric Processing and
Environmental and Climate Impacts, ISRN Atmos. Sci., 2013, 245076,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/245076" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1155/2013/245076</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Langmann, B., Zakšek, K., Hort, M., and Duggen, S.: Volcanic ash as fertiliser for the surface ocean, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 3891–3899, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-3891-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-3891-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lee, C. C. and Chang, C. P.: Energy consumption and economic growth in Asian
economies: A more comprehensive analysis using panel data, Resour. Energy
Econ., 30, 50–65, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2007.03.003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.reseneeco.2007.03.003</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Levin, N., Levental, S., and Morag, H.: The effect of wildfires on vegetation
cover and dune activity in Australia's desert dunes: A multisensor analysis,
Int. J. Wildl. Fire, 21, 459–475, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1071/WF10150" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1071/WF10150</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Li, F., Koopal, L., and Tan, W.: Roles of different types of oxalate surface
complexes in dissolution process of ferrihydrite aggregates, Sci. Rep.,
8, 1–13, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20401-5" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41598-018-20401-5</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lindenthal, A., Langmann, B., Pätsch, J., Lorkowski, I., and Hort, M.: The ocean response to volcanic iron fertilisation after the eruption of Kasatochi volcano: a regional-scale biogeochemical ocean model study, Biogeosciences, 10, 3715–3729, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-3715-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-10-3715-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Liu, X., Easter, R. C., Ghan, S. J., Zaveri, R., Rasch, P., Shi, X., Lamarque, J.-F., Gettelman, A., Morrison, H., Vitt, F., Conley, A., Park, S., Neale, R., Hannay, C., Ekman, A. M. L., Hess, P., Mahowald, N., Collins, W., Iacono, M. J., Bretherton, C. S., Flanner, M. G., and Mitchell, D.: Toward a minimal representation of aerosols in climate models: description and evaluation in the Community Atmosphere Model CAM5, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 709–739, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-709-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-5-709-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Liu, X., Ma, P.-L., Wang, H., Tilmes, S., Singh, B., Easter, R. C., Ghan, S. J., and Rasch, P. J.: Description and evaluation of a new four-mode version of the Modal Aerosol Module (MAM4) within version 5.3 of the Community Atmosphere Model, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 505–522, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-505-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-9-505-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Longo, A. F., Feng, Y., Lai, B., Landing, W. M., Shelley, R. U., Nenes, A.,
Mihalopoulos, N., Violaki, K., and Ingall, E. D.: Influence of Atmospheric
Processes on the Solubility and Composition of Iron in Saharan Dust,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 50, 6912–6920, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02605" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.est.6b02605</ext-link>,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Luo, C., Mahowald, N., Bond, T., Chuang, P. Y., Artaxo, P., Siefert, R.,
Chen, Y., and Schauer, J.: Combustion iron distribution and deposition,
Global Biogeochem. Cy,, 22, GB1012, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GB002964" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007GB002964</ext-link>,
2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mahowald, N.: Aerosol indirect effect on biogeochemical cycles and climate,
Science, 334, 794–796, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207374" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1207374</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mahowald, N., Jickells, T. D., Baker, A. R., Artaxo, P., Benitez-Nelson, C.
R., Bergametti, G., Bond, T. C., Chen, Y., Cohen, D. D., Herut, B., Kubilay,
N., Losno, R., Luo, C., Maenhaut, W., McGee, K. A., Okin, G. S., Siefert, R.
L., and Tsukuda, S.: Global distribution of atmospheric phosphorus sources,
concentrations and deposition rates, and anthropogenic impacts, Global
Biogeochem. Cy., 22, 1–19, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003240" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008GB003240</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mahowald, N. M., Engelstaedter, S., Luo, C., Sealy, A., Artaxo, P.,
Benitez-Nelson, C., Bonnet, S., Chen, Y., Chuang, P. Y., Cohen, D. D.,
Dulac, F., Herut, B., Johansen, A. M., Kubilay, N., Losno, R., Maenhaut, W.,
Paytan, A., Prospero, J. M., Shank, L. M., and Siefert, R. L.: Atmospheric
iron deposition: global distribution, variability, and human perturbations,
Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci., 1, 245–278, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163727" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163727</ext-link>,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mahowald, N. M., Scanza, R., Brahney, J., Goodale, C. L., Hess, P. G.,
Moore, J. K., and Neff, J.: Aerosol Deposition Impacts on Land and Ocean
Carbon Cycles, Curr. Clim. Chang. Reports, 3, 16–31,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-017-0056-z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s40641-017-0056-z</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mahowald, N. M., Hamilton, D. S., Mackey, K. R. M., Moore, J. K., Baker, A.
R., Scanza, R. A., and Zhang, Y.: Aerosol trace metal leaching and impacts on
marine microorganisms, Nat. Commun., 9, 1–15, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04970-7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41467-018-04970-7</ext-link>,
2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mann, G. W., Carslaw, K. S., Reddington, C. L., Pringle, K. J., Schulz, M., Asmi, A., Spracklen, D. V., Ridley, D. A., Woodhouse, M. T., Lee, L. A., Zhang, K., Ghan, S. J., Easter, R. C., Liu, X., Stier, P., Lee, Y. H., Adams, P. J., Tost, H., Lelieveld, J., Bauer, S. E., Tsigaridis, K., van Noije, T. P. C., Strunk, A., Vignati, E., Bellouin, N., Dalvi, M., Johnson, C. E., Bergman, T., Kokkola, H., von Salzen, K., Yu, F., Luo, G., Petzold, A., Heintzenberg, J., Clarke, A., Ogren, J. A., Gras, J., Baltensperger, U., Kaminski, U., Jennings, S. G., O'Dowd, C. D., Harrison, R. M., Beddows, D. C. S., Kulmala, M., Viisanen, Y., Ulevicius, V., Mihalopoulos, N., Zdimal, V., Fiebig, M., Hansson, H.-C., Swietlicki, E., and Henzing, J. S.: Intercomparison and evaluation of global aerosol microphysical properties among AeroCom models of a range of complexity, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 4679–4713, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-4679-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-4679-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Martin, H., Gordon, R. M., and Fitzwater, S. E.: The case for iron, Limnol.
Oceanogr., 36, 1793–1802, 1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Martin, J.: Glacial-interglacial <inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> change: The iron hypothesis,
Paleoceanography, 5, 1–13, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page3860?><ref id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mather, T. A., Pyle, D. M., Tsanev, V. I., McGonigle, A. J. S., Oppenheimer,
C., and Allen, A. G.: A reassessment of current volcanic emissions from the
Central American arc with specific examples from Nicaragua, J. Volcanol.
Geotherm. Res., 149, 297–311, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2005.07.021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2005.07.021</ext-link>,
2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mather, T. A., Witt, M. L. I., Pyle, D. M., Quayle, B. M., Aiuppa, A.,
Bagnato, E., Martin, R. S., Sims, K. W. W., Edmonds, M., Sutton, A. J., and
Ilyinskaya, E.: Halogens and trace metal emissions from the ongoing 2008
summit eruption of Kîlauea volcano, Hawaìi, Geochim. Cosmochim.
Ac., 83, 292–323, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2011.11.029" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.gca.2011.11.029</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Matsui, H., Mahowald, N. M., Moteki, N., Hamilton, D. S., Ohata, S.,
Yoshida, A., Koike, M., Scanza, R. A., and Flanner, M. G.: Anthropogenic
combustion iron as a complex climate forcer, Nat. Commun., 9, 1–10,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03997-0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41467-018-03997-0</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Menut, L., Bessagnet, B., Colette, A., and Khvorostiyanov, D.: On the impact
of the vertical resolution on chemistry-transport modelling, Atmos.
Environ., 67, 370–384, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.11.026" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.11.026</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Meskhidze, N., Chameides, W. L., Nenes, A., and Chen, G.: Iron mobilization
in mineral dust: Can anthropogenic SO2 emissions affect ocean productivity?,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 2085, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018035" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2003GL018035</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Meskhidze, N., Chameides, W. L., and Nenes, A.: Dust and pollution: A recipe
for enhanced ocean fertilization?, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 110, D03301, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005082" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JD005082</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib85"><label>85</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Moore, C. M. M., Mills, M. M. M., Arrigo, K. R. R., Berman-Frank, I., Bopp,
L., Boyd, P. W. W., Galbraith, E. D. D., Geider, R. J. J., Guieu, C.,
Jaccard, S. L. L., Jickells, T. D. D., La Roche, J., Lenton, T. M. M.,
Mahowald, N. M. M., Marañón, E., Marinov, I., Moore, J. K. K.,
Nakatsuka, T., Oschlies, A., Saito, M. A. A., Thingstad, T. F. F., Tsuda, A., and Ulloa, O.: Processes and patterns of oceanic nutrient limitation, Nat.
Geosci., 6, 701–710, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1765" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ngeo1765</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib86"><label>86</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Moore, J. K., Doney, S. C., and Lindsay, K.: Upper ocean ecosystem dynamics
and iron cycling in a global three-dimensional model, Global Biogeochem.
Cy., 18, 1–21, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GB002220" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004GB002220</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib87"><label>87</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Moore, K., Doney, S. C., Lindsay, K., Mahowald, N., and Michaels,
A. F.: Nitrogen fixation amplifies the ocean biogeochemical response to
decadal timescale variations in mineral dust deposition, Tellus B, 58, 560–572, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2006.00209.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0889.2006.00209.x</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib88"><label>88</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Morrison, H. and Gettelman, A.: A new two-moment bulk stratiform cloud
microphysics scheme in the community atmosphere model, version 3 (CAM3).
Part I: Description and numerical tests, J. Climate, 21, 3642–3659,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2105.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2008JCLI2105.1</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib89"><label>89</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Myriokefalitakis, S., Tsigaridis, K., Mihalopoulos, N., Sciare, J., Nenes, A., Kawamura, K., Segers, A., and Kanakidou, M.: In-cloud oxalate formation in the global troposphere: a 3-D modeling study, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 5761–5782, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-5761-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-5761-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib90"><label>90</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Myriokefalitakis, S., Daskalakis, N., Mihalopoulos, N., Baker, A. R., Nenes, A., and Kanakidou, M.: Changes in dissolved iron deposition to the oceans driven by human activity: a 3-D global modelling study, Biogeosciences, 12, 3973–3992, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-3973-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-12-3973-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib91"><label>91</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Myriokefalitakis, S., Ito, A., Kanakidou, M., Nenes, A., Krol, M. C., Mahowald, N. M., Scanza, R. A., Hamilton, D. S., Johnson, M. S., Meskhidze, N., Kok, J. F., Guieu, C., Baker, A. R., Jickells, T. D., Sarin, M. M., Bikkina, S., Shelley, R., Bowie, A., Perron, M. M. G., and Duce, R. A.: Reviews and syntheses: the GESAMP atmospheric iron deposition model intercomparison study, Biogeosciences, 15, 6659–6684, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-6659-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-15-6659-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib92"><label>92</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Neale, R. B., Chen, C. C., Gettelman, A., Lauritzen, P. H., Park, S.,
Williamson, D. L., Conley, A. J., Garcia, R., Kinnison, D., Lamarque, J. F.,
Marsh, D., Mills, M., Smith, A. K., Tilmes, S., Vitt, F., Morrison, H.,
Cameron-Smith, P., Collins, W. D., Iacono, M. J., Easter, R. C., Ghan, S.
J., Liu, X., Rasch, P. J., and Taylor, M. A.: Description of the NCAR
Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 5.0), Tech.  Rep.  NCAR/TN-486+STR,  National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib93"><label>93</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Oakes, M., Ingall, E. D., Lai, B., Shafer, M. M., Hays, M. D., Liu, Z. G.,
Russell, A. G., and Weber, R. J.: Iron solubility related to particle sulfur
content in source emission and ambient fine particles, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 46, 6637–6644, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es300701c" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es300701c</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib94"><label>94</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>O'Dowd, C. D. and de Leeuw, G.: Marine aerosol production: a review of the
current knowledge, Philos. T. Roy. Soc. A,
365, 1753–1774, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2007.2043" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1098/rsta.2007.2043</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib95"><label>95</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Olgun, N., Duggen, S., Croot, P. L., Delmelle, P., Dietze, H., Schacht, U.,
Óskarsson, N., Siebe, C., Auer, A., and Garbe-Schönberg, D.: Surface
ocean iron fertilization: The role of airborne volcanic ash from subduction
zone and hot spot volcanoes and related iron fluxes into the Pacific Ocean,
Global Biogeochem. Cy., 25, GB4001, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GB003761" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009GB003761</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib96"><label>96</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Panias, D., Taxiarchou, M., Paspaliaris, I., and Kontopoulos, A.: Mechanisms
of dissolution of iron oxides in aqueus oxalions, Hydrometallurgy, 42,
257–265, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib97"><label>97</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Paris, R., Desboeufs, K. V., Formenti, P., Nava, S., and Chou, C.: Chemical characterisation of iron in dust and biomass burning aerosols during AMMA-SOP0/DABEX: implication for iron solubility, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 4273–4282, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-4273-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-4273-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib98"><label>98</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Paris, R., Desboeufs, K. V., and Journet, E.: Variability of dust iron
solubility in atmospheric waters: Investigation of the role of oxalate
organic complexation, Atmos. Environ., 45, 6510–6517,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.08.068" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.08.068</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib99"><label>99</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Perlwitz, J. P., Pérez García-Pando, C., and Miller, R. L.: Predicting the mineral composition of dust aerosols – Part 1: Representing key processes, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 11593–11627, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-11593-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-11593-2015</ext-link>, 2015a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib100"><label>100</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Perlwitz, J. P., Pérez García-Pando, C., and Miller, R. L.: Predicting the mineral composition of dust aerosols – Part 2: Model evaluation and identification of key processes with observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 11629–11652, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-11629-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-11629-2015</ext-link>, 2015b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib101"><label>101</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Price, C. A.: Iron compounds and plant nutrition, Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol.,
19, 239–248, 1968.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib102"><label>102</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Reddington, C. L., Spracklen, D. V., Artaxo, P., Ridley, D. A., Rizzo, L. V., and Arana, A.: Analysis of particulate emissions from tropical biomass burning using a global aerosol model an<?pagebreak page3861?>d long-term surface observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 11083–11106, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-11083-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-11083-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib103"><label>103</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Rémy, S., Veira, A., Paugam, R., Sofiev, M., Kaiser, J. W., Marenco, F., Burton, S. P., Benedetti, A., Engelen, R. J., Ferrare, R., and Hair, J. W.: Two global data sets of daily fire emission injection heights since 2003, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 2921–2942, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-2921-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-2921-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib104"><label>104</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ridley, D. A., Heald, C. L., Kok, J. F., and Zhao, C.: An observationally constrained estimate of global dust aerosol optical depth, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 15097–15117, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-15097-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-15097-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib105"><label>105</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Rogan, N., Achterberg, E. P., Le Moigne, F. A. C., Marsay, C. M., Tagliabue,
A., and Williams, R. G.: Volcanic ash as an oceanic iron source and sink,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 2732–2740, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL067905" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016GL067905</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib106"><label>106</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Scanza, R. A., Mahowald, N., Ghan, S., Zender, C. S., Kok, J. F., Liu, X., Zhang, Y., and Albani, S.: Modeling dust as component minerals in the Community Atmosphere Model: development of framework and impact on radiative forcing, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 537–561, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-537-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-537-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib107"><label>107</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Scanza, R. A., Hamilton, D. S., Perez Garcia-Pando, C., Buck, C., Baker, A., and Mahowald, N. M.: Atmospheric processing of iron in mineral and combustion aerosols: development of an intermediate-complexity mechanism suitable for Earth system models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 14175–14196, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-14175-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-14175-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib108"><label>108</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schroth, A. W., Crusius, J., Sholkovitz, E. R., and Bostick, B. C.: Iron
solubility driven by speciation in dust sources to the ocean, Nat. Geosci.,
2, 337–340, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo501" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ngeo501</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib109"><label>109</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schutgens, N., Tsyro, S., Gryspeerdt, E., Goto, D., Weigum, N., Schulz, M., and Stier, P.: On the spatio-temporal representativeness of observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 9761–9780, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-9761-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-9761-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib110"><label>110</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Shi, Z., Krom, M. D., Jickells, T. D., Bonneville, S., Carslaw, K. S.,
Mihalopoulos, N., Baker, A. R., and Benning, L. G.: Impacts on iron
solubility in the mineral dust by processes in the source region and the
atmosphere: A review, Aeolian Res., 5, 21–42,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeolia.2012.03.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.aeolia.2012.03.001</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib111"><label>111</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Shoenfelt, E. M., Sun, J., Winckler, G., Kaplan, M. R., Borunda, A. L.,
Farrell, K. R., Moreno, P. I., Gaiero, D. M., Recasens, C., Sambrotto, R. N., and Bostick, B. C.: High particulate iron(II) content in glacially sourced
dusts enhances productivity of a model diatom, Sci. Adv., 3, 1–10,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700314" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/sciadv.1700314</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib112"><label>112</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sholkovitz, E. R., Sedwick, P. N., Church, T. M., Baker, A. R., and Powell,
C. F.: Fractional solubility of aerosol iron: Synthesis of a global-scale
data set, Geochim. Cosmochim. Ac., 89, 173–189,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2012.04.022" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.gca.2012.04.022</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib113"><label>113</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Smith, M. B., Mahowald, N. M., Albani, S., Perry, A., Losno, R., Qu, Z., Marticorena, B., Ridley, D. A., and Heald, C. L.: Sensitivity of the interannual variability of mineral aerosol simulations to meteorological forcing dataset, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 3253–3278, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-3253-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-3253-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib114"><label>114</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sofiev, M., Ermakova, T., and Vankevich, R.: Evaluation of the smoke-injection height from wild-land fires using remote-sensing data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 1995–2006, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-1995-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-1995-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib115"><label>115</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Solmon, F., Chuang, P. Y., Meskhidze, N., and Chen, Y.: Acidic processing of
mineral dust iron by anthropogenic compounds over the north Pacific Ocean,
J. Geophys. Res., 114, D02305, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010417" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JD010417</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib116"><label>116</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Strong, C. L., Bullard, J. E., Dubois, C., McTainsh, G. H., and Baddock, M.
C.: Impact of wildfire on interdune ecology and sediments: An example from
the Simpson Desert, Australia, J. Arid Environ., 74, 1577–1581,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2010.05.032" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jaridenv.2010.05.032</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib117"><label>117</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Teixeira, J. C., Carvalho, A. C., Tuccella, P., Curci, G., and Rocha, A.:
WRF-chem sensitivity to vertical resolution during a saharan dust event,
Phys. Chem. Earth, 94, 188–195, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2015.04.002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.pce.2015.04.002</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib118"><label>118</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Tobo, Y., Adachi, K., DeMott, P. J., Hill, T. C. J., Hamilton, D. S.,
Mahowald, N. M., Nagatsuka, N., Ohata, S., Uetake, J., Kondo, Y., and Koike,
M.: Glacially sourced dust as a potentially significant source of ice
nucleating particles, Nat. Geosci., 12, 253–258,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0314-x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41561-019-0314-x</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib119"><label>119</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Turquety, S., Logan, J. A., Jacob, D. J., Hudman, R. C., Leung, F. Y.,
Heald, C. L., Yantosca, R. M., Wu, S., Emmons, L. K., Edwards, D. P., and
Sachse, G. W.: Inventory of boreal fire emissions for North America in 2004:
Importance of peat burning and pyroconvective injection, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 112, 1–13, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007281" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JD007281</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib120"><label>120</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ulery, A. L. and Graham, R. C.: Forest Fire Effects on Soil Color and
Texture, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 57, 135–140,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1993.03615995005700010026x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2136/sssaj1993.03615995005700010026x</ext-link>, 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib121"><label>121</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wagenbrenner, N. S., Chung, S. H., and Lamb, B. K.: A large source of dust
missing in Particulate Matter emission inventories? Wind erosion of
post-fire landscapes, Elem. Sci. Anth., 5, 1–10, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.185" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1525/elementa.185</ext-link>,
2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib122"><label>122</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wagner, R., Jähn, M., and Schepanski, K.: Wildfires as a source of airborne mineral dust – revisiting a conceptual model using large-eddy simulation (LES), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 11863–11884, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-11863-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-11863-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib123"><label>123</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wang, R., Balkanski, Y., Boucher, O., Bopp, L., Chappell, A., Ciais, P., Hauglustaine, D., Peñuelas, J., and Tao, S.: Sources, transport and deposition of iron in the global atmosphere, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 6247–6270, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-6247-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-6247-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib124"><label>124</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Ward, D. E. and Hardy, C. C.: Smoke emission from wildland fires, Environ.
Int., 17, 117–137, 1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib125"><label>125</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ward, D. S., Kloster, S., Mahowald, N. M., Rogers, B. M., Randerson, J. T., and Hess, P. G.: The changing radiative forcing of fires: global model estimates for past, present and future, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 10857–10886, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-10857-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-10857-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib126"><label>126</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Weber, R. J., Guo, H., Russell, A. G., and Nenes, A.: High aerosol acidity
despite declining atmospheric sulfate concentrations over the past 15 years,
Nat. Geosci., 9, 1–5, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/NGEO2665" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/NGEO2665</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib127"><label>127</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wu, C., Liu, X., Diao, M., Zhang, K., Gettelman, A., Lu, Z., Penner, J. E., and Lin, Z.: Direct comparisons of ice cloud macro- and microphysical properties simulated by the Community Atmosphere Model version 5 with HIPPO aircraft observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 4731–4749, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-4731-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-4731-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page3862?><ref id="bib1.bib128"><label>128</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wu, M., Liu, X., Zhang, L., Wu, C., Lu, Z., Ma, P. L., Wang, H., Tilmes, S.,
Mahowald, N., Matsui, H., and Easter, R. C.: Impacts of Aerosol Dry
Deposition on Black Carbon Spatial Distributions and Radiative Effects in
the Community Atmosphere Model CAM5, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10,
1150–1171, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2017MS001219" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2017MS001219</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib129"><label>129</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Xu, N. and Gao, Y.: Characterization of hematite dissolution affected by
oxalate coating, kinetics and pH, Appl. Geochem., 23, 783–793,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2007.12.026" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.apgeochem.2007.12.026</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib130"><label>130</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Yamasoe, M. A., Artaxo, P., Miguel, A. H., and Allen, A. G.: Chemical
composition of aerosol particles from direct emissions of vegetation fires
in the Amazon Basin: Water-soluble species and trace elements, Atmos.
Environ., 34, 1641–1653, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00329-5" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00329-5</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib131"><label>131</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zender, C. S., Bian, H., and Newman, D.: Mineral Dust Entrainment and
Deposition (DEAD) model: Description and 1990s dust climatology, J. Geophys.
Res., 108, 4416, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002775" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD002775</ext-link>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib132"><label>132</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zhang, Y., Mahowald, N., Scanza, R. A., Journet, E., Desboeufs, K., Albani, S., Kok, J. F., Zhuang, G., Chen, Y., Cohen, D. D., Paytan, A., Patey, M. D., Achterberg, E. P., Engelbrecht, J. P., and Fomba, K. W.: Modeling the global emission, transport and deposition of trace elements associated with mineral dust, Biogeosciences, 12, 5771–5792, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-5771-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-12-5771-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib133"><label>133</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Zhu, X., Prospero, J., and Millero, F.: Diel variability of soluble Fe(II)
and soluble total Fe in North Africa dust in the trade winds at Barbados, J.
Geophys. Res., 102, 21297–21305, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib134"><label>134</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zhuang, G., Yi, Z., Duce, R. A., and Brown, P. R.: Link between iron and
sulphur cycles suggested by detection of Fe(n) in remote marine aerosols,
Nature, 355, 537–539, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/355537a0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/355537a0</ext-link>, 1992.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Improved methodologies for Earth system modelling of atmospheric soluble iron and observation comparisons using the Mechanism of Intermediate complexity for Modelling Iron (MIMI v1.0)</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>Herein, we present a description of the Mechanism of Intermediate
complexity for Modelling Iron (MIMI v1.0). This iron processing module was
developed for use within Earth system models and has been updated within a
modal aerosol framework from the original implementation in a bulk aerosol
model. MIMI simulates the emission and atmospheric processing of two main
sources of iron in aerosol prior to deposition: mineral dust and combustion
processes. Atmospheric dissolution of insoluble to soluble iron is
parameterized by an acidic interstitial aerosol reaction and a separate
in-cloud aerosol reaction scheme based on observations of enhanced aerosol
iron solubility in the presence of oxalate. Updates include a more
comprehensive treatment of combustion iron emissions, improvements to the
iron dissolution scheme, and an improved physical dust mobilization scheme.
An extensive dataset consisting predominantly of cruise-based observations
was compiled to compare to the model. The annual mean modelled concentration
of surface-level total iron compared well with observations but less so in
the soluble fraction (iron solubility) for which observations are much more
variable in space and time. Comparing model and observational data is
sensitive to the definition of the average as well as the temporal and spatial
range over which it is calculated. Through statistical analysis and
examples, we show that a median or log-normal distribution is preferred when
comparing with soluble iron observations. The iron solubility
calculated at each model time step versus that calculated based on a ratio
of the monthly mean values, which is routinely presented in aerosol studies
and used in ocean biogeochemistry models, is on average globally one-third
(34&thinsp;%) higher. We redefined ocean deposition regions based on dominant
iron emission sources and found that the daily variability in soluble iron
simulated by MIMI was larger than that of previous model simulations. MIMI
simulated a general increase in soluble iron deposition to Southern
Hemisphere oceans by a factor of 2 to 4 compared with the previous
version, which has implications for our understanding of the ocean
biogeochemistry of these predominantly iron-limited ocean regions.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Achterberg, E. P., Moore, C. M., Henson, S. A., Steigenberger, S., Stohl,
A., Eckhardt, S., Avendano, L. C., Cassidy, M., Hembury, D., Klar, J. K.,
Lucas, M. I., Macey, A. I., Marsay, C. M., and Ryan-Keogh, Thomas, J.:
Natural iron ferlilisation by the Eyjafjallajokull volcanic eruption,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 921–926, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50221" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50221</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Akagi, S. K., Yokelson, R. J., Wiedinmyer, C., Alvarado, M. J., Reid, J. S., Karl, T., Crounse, J. D., and Wennberg, P. O.: Emission factors for open and domestic biomass burning for use in atmospheric models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 4039–4072, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-4039-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-4039-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Albani, S., Mahowald, N. M., Perry, A. T., Scanza, R. A., Zender, C. S.,
Heavens, N. G., Maggi, V., Kok, J. F., and Otto-Bliesner, B. L.: Improved
dust representation in the Community Atmosphere Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth
Sy., 6, 541–570, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013MS000279" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013MS000279</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Andreae, M. O. and Crutzen, P. J.: Atmospheric Aerosols: Biogeochemical
Sources and Role in Atmospheric Chemistry, Science, 276, 1052–1058,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.276.5315.1052" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.276.5315.1052</a>, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Arimoto, R.: Eolian dust and climate: relationships to sources, tropospheric
chemistry, transport and deposition, Earth-Sci. Rev., 54, 29–42,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-8252(01)00040-X" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-8252(01)00040-X</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Artaxo, P., Rizzo, L. V., Brito, J. F., Barbosa, H. M. J., Arana, A., Sena,
E. T., Cirino, G. G., Bastos, W., Martin, S. T., and Andreae, M. O.:
Atmospheric aerosols in Amazonia and land use change: from natural biogenic
to biomass burning conditions, Faraday Discuss., 165, 203–235, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1039/c3fd00052d" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1039/c3fd00052d</a>,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Aumont, O., Ethé, C., Tagliabue, A., Bopp, L., and Gehlen, M.: PISCES-v2: an ocean biogeochemical model for carbon and ecosystem studies, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 2465–2513, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2465-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2465-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Baker, A. R., Jickells, T. D., Biswas, K. F., Weston, K., and French, M.:
Nutrients in atmospheric aerosol particles along the Atlantic Meridional
Transect, Deep-Sea Res. Pt. II, 53,
1706–1719, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2006.05.012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2006.05.012</a>, 2006a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Baker, A. R., Jickells, T. D., Witt, M., and Linge, K. L.: Trends in the
solubility of iron, aluminium, manganese and phosphorus in aerosol collected
over the Atlantic Ocean, Mar. Chem., 98, 43–58,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marchem.2005.06.004" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marchem.2005.06.004</a>, 2006b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Bates, T. S., Lamb, B. K., Guenther, A., Dignon, J., and Stoiber, R. E.:
Sulfur Emissions to the Atmosphere from Natural Sources, J. Atmos. Chem.,
14, 315–337, 1992.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Böke, H., Göktürk, E. H., Caner-Saltýk, E. N., and Demirci,
Þ.: Effect of airborne particle on SO2–calcite reaction, Appl. Surf.
Sci., 140, 70–82, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-4332(98)00468-1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-4332(98)00468-1</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Boyd, P. W., Jickells, T., Law, C. S., Blain, S., Boyle, E. A., Buesseler,
K. O., Coale, K. H., Cullen, J. J., Baar, H. J. W. De, Follows, M., Harvey,
M., Lancelot, C., Levasseur, M., Owens, N. P. J., Pollard, R., Rivkin, R.
B., Sarmiento, J., Schoemann, V., Smetacek, V., Takeda, S., Tsuda, A.,
Turner, S., and Watson, A. J.: Mesoscale Iron Enrichment Experiments 1993 –
2005: Synthesis and Future Directions, Science, 315, 612–618, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Bullard, J. E.: The distribution and biogeochemical importance of
highlatitude dust in the Arctic and Southern Ocean-Antarctic regions, J.
Geophys. Res., 122, 3098–3103, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD026363" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD026363</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Bullard, J. E., Baddock, M., Bradwell, T., Crusius, J., Darlington, E.,
Gaiero, D., Gassó, S., Gisladottir, G., Hodgkins, R., McCulloch, R.,
McKenna-Neuman, C., Mockford, T., Stewart, H., and Thorsteinsson, T.:
High-latitude dust in the Earth system, Rev. Geophys., 54, 447–485,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016RG000518" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016RG000518</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Cakmur, R. V., Miller, R. L., Perlwitz, J., Geogdzhayev, I. V., Ginoux, P.,
Koch, D., Kohfeld, K. E., Tegen, I., and Zender, C. S.: Constraining the
magnitude of the global dust cycle by minimizing the difference between a
model and observations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 111, 1–24,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD005791" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD005791</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Capone, D., Zehr, J., Paerl, H., Bergman, B., and Carpenter, E.:
Trichodesmium, a globallly significant marine cyanobacterium, Science, 276, 1221–1229, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Certini, G.: Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: A review,
Oecologia, 143, 1–10, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1788-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1788-8</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Chin, M. and Jacob, D. J.: Anthropogenic and natural contributions to
tropospheric sulfate: A global model analysis, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
101, 18691–18699, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/96JD01222" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/96JD01222</a>, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Chuang, P. Y., Duvall, R. M., Shafer, M. M., and Schauer, J. J.: The origin
of water soluble particulate iron in the Asian atmospheric outflow, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 32, 1–4, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL021946" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL021946</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Claquin, T., Schulz, M., and Balkanski, Y. J.: Modeling the Minerology of
Atmospheric Dust Sources, J. Geophys. Res. Res., 104, 22243–22256,
1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Computational and Information Systems Laboratory: Cheyenne: HPE/SGI ICE XA
System (University Community Computing), Boulder, CO Natl. Cent. Atmos.
Res., <a href="https://doi.org/10.5065/D6RX99HX" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5065/D6RX99HX</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Conway, T. M., Hamilton, D. S., Shelley, R. U., Aguilar-Islas, A. M.,
Landing, W. M., Mahowald, N. M., and John, S. G.: Tracing and constraining
anthropogenic aerosol iron fluxes to the North Atlantic Ocean using iron
isotopes, Nat. Commun., 10, 1–10, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10457-w" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10457-w</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Cornell, R. and Schindler, P.: Photochemical dissolution of goethite in
acid/oxalate solution, Clays Clay Miner., 35, 347–352,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1346/CCMN.1987.0350504" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1346/CCMN.1987.0350504</a>, 1987.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Crockford, R. H. and Willett, I. R.: Application of mineral magnetism to
describe profile development of toposequences of a sedimentary soil in
south-eastern Australia, Aust. J. Soil Res., 39, 927–949,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1071/SR00077" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1071/SR00077</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Crusius, J., Schroth, A. W., Gassó, S., Moy, C. M., Levy, R. C., and
Gatica, M.: Glacial flour dust storms in the Gulf of Alaska: Hydrologic and
meteorological controls and their importance as a source of bioavailable
iron, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L06602, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL046573" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL046573</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Dentener, F., Kinne, S., Bond, T., Boucher, O., Cofala, J., Generoso, S., Ginoux, P., Gong, S., Hoelzemann, J. J., Ito, A., Marelli, L., Penner, J. E., Putaud, J.-P., Textor, C., Schulz, M., van der Werf, G. R., and Wilson, J.: Emissions of primary aerosol and precursor gases in the years 2000 and 1750 prescribed data-sets for AeroCom, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 4321–4344, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-4321-2006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-4321-2006</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Di Biagio, C., Di Sarra, A., Meloni, D., Monteleone, F., Piacentino, S., and
Sferlazzo, D.: Measurements of Mediterranean aerosol radiative forcing and
influence of the single scattering albedo, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 114,
1–12, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011037" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011037</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Duce, R. and Tindale, N.: Atmospheric transport of iron and its deposition
in the ocean, Limnol. Oceanogr., 36, 1715–1726, 1991.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Facchini, M. C., Rinaldi, M., Decesari, S., Carbone, C., Finessi, E.,
Mircea, M., Fuzzi, S., Ceburnis, D., Flanagan, R., Nilsson, E. D., de Leeuw,
G., Martino, M., Woeltjen, J., and O'Dowd, C. D.: Primary submicron marine
aerosol dominated by insoluble organic colloids and aggregates, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 35, 1–5, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL034210" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL034210</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Fanourgakis, G. S., Kanakidou, M., Nenes, A., Bauer, S. E., Bergman, T., Carslaw, K. S., Grini, A., Hamilton, D. S., Johnson, J. S., Karydis, V. A., Kirkevåg, A., Kodros, J. K., Lohmann, U., Luo, G., Makkonen, R., Matsui, H., Neubauer, D., Pierce, J. R., Schmale, J., Stier, P., Tsigaridis, K., van Noije, T., Wang, H., Watson-Parris, D., Westervelt, D. M., Yang, Y., Yoshioka, M., Daskalakis, N., Decesari, S., Gysel-Beer, M., Kalivitis, N., Liu, X., Mahowald, N. M., Myriokefalitakis, S., Schrödner, R., Sfakianaki, M., Tsimpidi, A. P., Wu, M., and Yu, F.: Evaluation of global simulations of aerosol particle and cloud condensation nuclei number, with implications for cloud droplet formation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 8591–8617, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-8591-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-8591-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Fung, I., Meyn, S. K., Tegen, I., Doney, S., John, J., and Bishop, J.: Iron
supply and demand in the upper ocean, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 14,
281–295, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Gaudichet, A., Echalar, F., Chatenet, B., Quisefit, J. P., Malingre, G.,
Cachier, H., Buat-Menard, P., Artaxo, P., and Maenhaut, W.: Trace elements in
tropical African savanna biomass burning aerosols, J. Atmos. Chem.,
22, 19–39, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00708179" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00708179</a>, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Gettelman, A., Liu, X., Ghan, S. J., Morrison, H., Park, S., Conley, A. J.,
Klein, S. A., Boyle, J., Mitchell, D. L., and Li, J. L. F.: Global
simulations of ice nucleation and ice supersaturation with an improved cloud
scheme in the Community Atmosphere Model, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 115,
1–19, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013797" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013797</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Ghosh, S.: Steel consumption and economic growth: Evidence from India,
Resour. Policy, 31, 7–11, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2006.03.005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2006.03.005</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Giglio, L., Randerson, J. T., and van der Werf, G. R.: Analysis of daily,
monthly, and annual burned area using the fourth-generation global fire
emissions database (GFED4), J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 118,
317–328, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrg.20042" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrg.20042</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Golaz, J., Caldwell, P. M., Roekel, L. P. Van, Petersen, M. R., Tang, Q.,
Wolfe, J. D., Abeshu, G., Anantharaj, V., Asay-davis, X. S., Bader, D. C.,
Baldwin, S. A., Bisht, G., Bogenschutz, P. A., Branstetter, M., Brunke, M.
A., Brus, S. R., Burrows, S. M., Cameron-smith, P. J., Donahue, A. S.,
Deakin, M., Easter, R. C., Evans, K. J., Feng, Y., Flanner, M., Foucar, J.
G., Fyke, J. G., Hunke, E. C., Jacob, R. L., Jacobsen, D. W., Jeffery, N.,
Jones, P. W., Keen, N. D., Klein, S. A., Larson, V. E., Leung, L. R., Li,
H., Lin, W., Lipscomb, W. H., Ma, P., Mccoy, R. B., Neale, R. B., Price, S.
F., Qian, Y., Rasch, P. J., Eyre, J. E. J. R., Riley, W. J., Ringler, T. D.,
Roberts, A. F., Roesler, E. L., Salinger, A. G., Shaheen, Z., Shi, X.,
Singh, B., Veneziani, M., Wan, H., Wang, H., Wang, S., Williams, D. N.,
Wolfram, P. J., Worley, P. H., Xie, S., Yang, Y., Yoon, J.-H., Zelinka, M.
D., Zender, C. S., Zeng, X., Zhang, C., Zhang, K., Zhang, Y., Zheng, X.,
Zhou, T., and Zhu, Q.: The DOE E3SM Coupled Model Version 1?: Overview and
Evaluation at Standard Resolution, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 1–41,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001603" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001603</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Gregg, W. W., Conkright, M. E., Ginoux, P., O'Reilly, J. E., and Casey, N.
W.: Ocean primary production and climate: Global decadal changes, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 30, 10–13, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL016889" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL016889</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Guieu, C., Bonnet, S., Wagener, T., and Loÿe-Pilot, M. D.: Biomass
burning as a source of dissolved iron to the open ocean?, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 32, L19608, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL022962" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL022962</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Guieu, C., Aumont, O., Paytan, A., Bopp, L., Law, C. S., Mahowald, N.,
Achterberg, E. P., Marañón, E., Salihoglu, B., Crise, A., Wagener,
T., Herut, B., Desboeufs, K., Kanakidou, M., Olgun, N., Peters, F.,
Völker, C., Aumont, O., Paytan, A., Bopp, L., Law, C. S., Mahowald, N.,
Achterberg, E. P., Marañón, E., Salihoglu, B., Crise, A., Wagener,
T., Herut, B., Desboeufs, K., Kanakidou, M., Olgun, N., Peters, F., and
Völker, C.: Global Biogeochemical Cycles deposition to Low Nutrient Low
Chlorophyll regions, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 28, 1179–1198,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GB004852" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GB004852</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Hamme, R., Webley, P., Crawford, W., Whitney, F., DeGrandpre, M., Emerson,
S., Eriksen, C., Giesbrecht, K., Gower, J., Kavanaugh, M., Peña, M.,
Sabine, C., Batten, S., Coogan, L., Grundle, D., and Lockwood, D.: Volcanic
ash fuels anomalous plankton bloom in subarctic northeast Pacific, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 37, L19604, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL044629" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL044629</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Holben, B. N., Slutsker, T. I. E. I., Tar, D., Buis, J. P., Setxerj, I. I. A., Reagan, A., J, Y., Nakajima, T., Lavenu, F., Vemte, E., Jankowiak, I., Smirnozjt, A., Eck, T. F., Slutsker, I., Tanre, D., Buis, J. P., Setzer, A., Vermote, E., Reagan, J. A., Kaufman, Y. J., Nakajima, T., Lavenu, F., Jankowiak, I., and Smirnov, A.: AERONET-A federated instrument network and data archive for aerosol characterization, Remote Sens. Environ., 66, 1–16, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Hu, M., Peng, J., Sun, K., Yue, D., Guo, S., Wiedensohler, A., and Wu, Z.:
Estimation of size-resolved ambient particle density based on the
measurement of aerosol number, mass, and chemical size distributions in the
winter in Beijing, Environ. Sci. Technol., 46, 9941–9947,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es204073t" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es204073t</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Huneeus, N., Schulz, M., Balkanski, Y., Griesfeller, J., Prospero, J., Kinne, S., Bauer, S., Boucher, O., Chin, M., Dentener, F., Diehl, T., Easter, R., Fillmore, D., Ghan, S., Ginoux, P., Grini, A., Horowitz, L., Koch, D., Krol, M. C., Landing, W., Liu, X., Mahowald, N., Miller, R., Morcrette, J.-J., Myhre, G., Penner, J., Perlwitz, J., Stier, P., Takemura, T., and Zender, C. S.: Global dust model intercomparison in AeroCom phase I, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 7781–7816, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7781-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7781-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Ingall, E., Feng, Y., Longo, A., Lai, B., Landing, W., Shelley, R., Morton,
P., Nenes, A., Violaki, K., Gao, Y., Sahai, S., and Castorina, E.: Enhanced
Iron Solubility at Low pH in Global Aerosols, Atmosphere-Basel, 9,
1–17, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos9050201" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos9050201</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Ito, A.: Global modeling study of potentially bioavailable iron input from
shipboard aerosol sources to the ocean, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 27,
1–10, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GB004378" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GB004378</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Ito, A.: Atmospheric processing of combustion aerosols as a source of
bioavailable iron, Environ. Sci. Tech. Let., 2, 70–75,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.5b00007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.5b00007</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Ito, A. and Xu, L.: Response of acid mobilization of iron-containing mineral dust to improvement of air quality projected in the future, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 3441–3459, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-3441-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-3441-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Ito, A., Myriokefalitakis, S., Kanakidou, M., Mahowald, N. M., Scanza, R.
A., Hamilton, D. S., Baker, A. R., Jickells, T., Sarin, M., Bikkina, S.,
Gao, Y., Shelley, R. U., Buck, C. S., Landing, W. M., Bowie, A. R., Perron,
M. M. G., Guieu, C., Meskhidze, N., Johnson, M. S., Feng, Y., Kok, J. F.,
Nenes, A., and Duce, R. A.: Pyrogenic iron: The missing link to high iron
solubility in aerosols, Sci. Adv., 5, 1–10, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau7671" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau7671</a>,
2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Jickells, T. D., An, Z. S., Andersen, K. K., Baker, A. R., Bergametti, G.,
Brooks, N., Cao, J. J., Boyd, P. W., Duce, R. A., Hunter, K. A., Kawahata, H.,
Kubilay, N., LaRoche, J., Liss, P. S., Mahowald, N., Prospero, J. M.,
Ridgwell, A. J., Tegen, I., and Torres, R.: Global iron connections between
desert dust, ocean biogeochemistry, and climate, Science, 308,
67–71, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1105959" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1105959</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Jickells, T. D., Boyd, P., and Hunter, K.: Biogeochemical impacts of dust on the
global carbon cycle, in Mineral Dust: A Key player in the Earth System,
edited by: Knippertz, P. and Stutt, J.-B., Springer Science+
Business Media, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 284–359, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Johnson, M. S. and Meskhidze, N.: Atmospheric dissolved iron deposition to the global oceans: effects of oxalate-promoted Fe dissolution, photochemical redox cycling, and dust mineralogy, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 1137–1155, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-1137-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-1137-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Journet, E., Desbouefs, K., Caqineau, S., and Colin, J.-L.: Mineralogy as a
critical factor of dust iron solubility, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L07805,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL031589" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL031589</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Kanakidou, M., Seinfeld, J. H., Pandis, S. N., Barnes, I., Dentener, F. J., Facchini, M. C., Van Dingenen, R., Ervens, B., Nenes, A., Nielsen, C. J., Swietlicki, E., Putaud, J. P., Balkanski, Y., Fuzzi, S., Horth, J., Moortgat, G. K., Winterhalter, R., Myhre, C. E. L., Tsigaridis, K., Vignati, E., Stephanou, E. G., and Wilson, J.: Organic aerosol and global climate modelling: a review, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 1053–1123, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-1053-2005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-1053-2005</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Ketterings, Q. M., Bigham, J. M., and Laperche, V.: Changes in Soil
Mineralogy and Texture Caused by Slash-and-Burn Fires in Sumatra, Indonesia,
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 64, 1108–1117, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2000.6431108x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2000.6431108x</a>,
2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Kim, D., Chin, M., Yu, H., Eck, T. F., Sinyuk, A., Smirnov, A., and Holben, B. N.: Dust optical properties over North Africa and Arabian Peninsula derived from the AERONET dataset, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 10733–10741, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-10733-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-10733-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Kok, J. F.: A scaling theory for the size distribution of emitted dust
aerosols suggests climate models underestimate the size of the global dust
cycle, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 1016–1021,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014798108" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014798108</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Kok, J. F., Mahowald, N. M., Fratini, G., Gillies, J. A., Ishizuka, M., Leys, J. F., Mikami, M., Park, M.-S., Park, S.-U., Van Pelt, R. S., and Zobeck, T. M.: An improved dust emission model – Part 1: Model description and comparison against measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 13023–13041, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13023-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13023-2014</a>, 2014a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Kok, J. F., Albani, S., Mahowald, N. M., and Ward, D. S.: An improved dust emission model – Part 2: Evaluation in the Community Earth System Model, with implications for the use of dust source functions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 13043–13061, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13043-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13043-2014</a>, 2014b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Kok, J. F., Ridley, D. A., Zhou, Q., Miller, R. L., Zhao, C., Heald, C. L.,
Ward, D. S., Albani, S., and Haustein, K.: Smaller desert dust cooling effect
estimated from analysis of dust size and abundance, Nat. Geosci., 10,
274–278, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2912" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2912</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Lamarque, J.-F., Bond, T. C., Eyring, V., Granier, C., Heil, A., Klimont, Z., Lee, D., Liousse, C., Mieville, A., Owen, B., Schultz, M. G., Shindell, D., Smith, S. J., Stehfest, E., Van Aardenne, J., Cooper, O. R., Kainuma, M., Mahowald, N., McConnell, J. R., Naik, V., Riahi, K., and van Vuuren, D. P.: Historical (1850–2000) gridded anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions of reactive gases and aerosols: methodology and application, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 7017–7039, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-7017-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-7017-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Langmann, B.: Volcanic Ash versus Mineral Dust: Atmospheric Processing and
Environmental and Climate Impacts, ISRN Atmos. Sci., 2013, 245076,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/245076" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/245076</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Langmann, B., Zakšek, K., Hort, M., and Duggen, S.: Volcanic ash as fertiliser for the surface ocean, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 3891–3899, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-3891-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-3891-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Lee, C. C. and Chang, C. P.: Energy consumption and economic growth in Asian
economies: A more comprehensive analysis using panel data, Resour. Energy
Econ., 30, 50–65, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2007.03.003" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2007.03.003</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Levin, N., Levental, S., and Morag, H.: The effect of wildfires on vegetation
cover and dune activity in Australia's desert dunes: A multisensor analysis,
Int. J. Wildl. Fire, 21, 459–475, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1071/WF10150" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1071/WF10150</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
Li, F., Koopal, L., and Tan, W.: Roles of different types of oxalate surface
complexes in dissolution process of ferrihydrite aggregates, Sci. Rep.,
8, 1–13, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20401-5" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20401-5</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
Lindenthal, A., Langmann, B., Pätsch, J., Lorkowski, I., and Hort, M.: The ocean response to volcanic iron fertilisation after the eruption of Kasatochi volcano: a regional-scale biogeochemical ocean model study, Biogeosciences, 10, 3715–3729, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-3715-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-3715-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, X., Easter, R. C., Ghan, S. J., Zaveri, R., Rasch, P., Shi, X., Lamarque, J.-F., Gettelman, A., Morrison, H., Vitt, F., Conley, A., Park, S., Neale, R., Hannay, C., Ekman, A. M. L., Hess, P., Mahowald, N., Collins, W., Iacono, M. J., Bretherton, C. S., Flanner, M. G., and Mitchell, D.: Toward a minimal representation of aerosols in climate models: description and evaluation in the Community Atmosphere Model CAM5, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 709–739, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-709-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-709-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, X., Ma, P.-L., Wang, H., Tilmes, S., Singh, B., Easter, R. C., Ghan, S. J., and Rasch, P. J.: Description and evaluation of a new four-mode version of the Modal Aerosol Module (MAM4) within version 5.3 of the Community Atmosphere Model, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 505–522, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-505-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-505-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>
Longo, A. F., Feng, Y., Lai, B., Landing, W. M., Shelley, R. U., Nenes, A.,
Mihalopoulos, N., Violaki, K., and Ingall, E. D.: Influence of Atmospheric
Processes on the Solubility and Composition of Iron in Saharan Dust,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 50, 6912–6920, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02605" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02605</a>,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>
Luo, C., Mahowald, N., Bond, T., Chuang, P. Y., Artaxo, P., Siefert, R.,
Chen, Y., and Schauer, J.: Combustion iron distribution and deposition,
Global Biogeochem. Cy,, 22, GB1012, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GB002964" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GB002964</a>,
2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>
Mahowald, N.: Aerosol indirect effect on biogeochemical cycles and climate,
Science, 334, 794–796, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207374" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207374</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>
Mahowald, N., Jickells, T. D., Baker, A. R., Artaxo, P., Benitez-Nelson, C.
R., Bergametti, G., Bond, T. C., Chen, Y., Cohen, D. D., Herut, B., Kubilay,
N., Losno, R., Luo, C., Maenhaut, W., McGee, K. A., Okin, G. S., Siefert, R.
L., and Tsukuda, S.: Global distribution of atmospheric phosphorus sources,
concentrations and deposition rates, and anthropogenic impacts, Global
Biogeochem. Cy., 22, 1–19, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003240" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003240</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>
Mahowald, N. M., Engelstaedter, S., Luo, C., Sealy, A., Artaxo, P.,
Benitez-Nelson, C., Bonnet, S., Chen, Y., Chuang, P. Y., Cohen, D. D.,
Dulac, F., Herut, B., Johansen, A. M., Kubilay, N., Losno, R., Maenhaut, W.,
Paytan, A., Prospero, J. M., Shank, L. M., and Siefert, R. L.: Atmospheric
iron deposition: global distribution, variability, and human perturbations,
Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci., 1, 245–278, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163727" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163727</a>,
2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>
Mahowald, N. M., Scanza, R., Brahney, J., Goodale, C. L., Hess, P. G.,
Moore, J. K., and Neff, J.: Aerosol Deposition Impacts on Land and Ocean
Carbon Cycles, Curr. Clim. Chang. Reports, 3, 16–31,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-017-0056-z" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-017-0056-z</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>
Mahowald, N. M., Hamilton, D. S., Mackey, K. R. M., Moore, J. K., Baker, A.
R., Scanza, R. A., and Zhang, Y.: Aerosol trace metal leaching and impacts on
marine microorganisms, Nat. Commun., 9, 1–15, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04970-7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04970-7</a>,
2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>
Mann, G. W., Carslaw, K. S., Reddington, C. L., Pringle, K. J., Schulz, M., Asmi, A., Spracklen, D. V., Ridley, D. A., Woodhouse, M. T., Lee, L. A., Zhang, K., Ghan, S. J., Easter, R. C., Liu, X., Stier, P., Lee, Y. H., Adams, P. J., Tost, H., Lelieveld, J., Bauer, S. E., Tsigaridis, K., van Noije, T. P. C., Strunk, A., Vignati, E., Bellouin, N., Dalvi, M., Johnson, C. E., Bergman, T., Kokkola, H., von Salzen, K., Yu, F., Luo, G., Petzold, A., Heintzenberg, J., Clarke, A., Ogren, J. A., Gras, J., Baltensperger, U., Kaminski, U., Jennings, S. G., O'Dowd, C. D., Harrison, R. M., Beddows, D. C. S., Kulmala, M., Viisanen, Y., Ulevicius, V., Mihalopoulos, N., Zdimal, V., Fiebig, M., Hansson, H.-C., Swietlicki, E., and Henzing, J. S.: Intercomparison and evaluation of global aerosol microphysical properties among AeroCom models of a range of complexity, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 4679–4713, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-4679-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-4679-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>
Martin, H., Gordon, R. M., and Fitzwater, S. E.: The case for iron, Limnol.
Oceanogr., 36, 1793–1802, 1991.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>
Martin, J.: Glacial-interglacial CO<sub>2</sub> change: The iron hypothesis,
Paleoceanography, 5, 1–13, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation>
Mather, T. A., Pyle, D. M., Tsanev, V. I., McGonigle, A. J. S., Oppenheimer,
C., and Allen, A. G.: A reassessment of current volcanic emissions from the
Central American arc with specific examples from Nicaragua, J. Volcanol.
Geotherm. Res., 149, 297–311, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2005.07.021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2005.07.021</a>,
2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>
Mather, T. A., Witt, M. L. I., Pyle, D. M., Quayle, B. M., Aiuppa, A.,
Bagnato, E., Martin, R. S., Sims, K. W. W., Edmonds, M., Sutton, A. J., and
Ilyinskaya, E.: Halogens and trace metal emissions from the ongoing 2008
summit eruption of Kîlauea volcano, Hawaìi, Geochim. Cosmochim.
Ac., 83, 292–323, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2011.11.029" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2011.11.029</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>
Matsui, H., Mahowald, N. M., Moteki, N., Hamilton, D. S., Ohata, S.,
Yoshida, A., Koike, M., Scanza, R. A., and Flanner, M. G.: Anthropogenic
combustion iron as a complex climate forcer, Nat. Commun., 9, 1–10,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03997-0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03997-0</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><mixed-citation>
Menut, L., Bessagnet, B., Colette, A., and Khvorostiyanov, D.: On the impact
of the vertical resolution on chemistry-transport modelling, Atmos.
Environ., 67, 370–384, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.11.026" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.11.026</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><mixed-citation>
Meskhidze, N., Chameides, W. L., Nenes, A., and Chen, G.: Iron mobilization
in mineral dust: Can anthropogenic SO2 emissions affect ocean productivity?,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 2085, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018035" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018035</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><mixed-citation>
Meskhidze, N., Chameides, W. L., and Nenes, A.: Dust and pollution: A recipe
for enhanced ocean fertilization?, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 110, D03301, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005082" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005082</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib85"><label>85</label><mixed-citation>
Moore, C. M. M., Mills, M. M. M., Arrigo, K. R. R., Berman-Frank, I., Bopp,
L., Boyd, P. W. W., Galbraith, E. D. D., Geider, R. J. J., Guieu, C.,
Jaccard, S. L. L., Jickells, T. D. D., La Roche, J., Lenton, T. M. M.,
Mahowald, N. M. M., Marañón, E., Marinov, I., Moore, J. K. K.,
Nakatsuka, T., Oschlies, A., Saito, M. A. A., Thingstad, T. F. F., Tsuda, A., and Ulloa, O.: Processes and patterns of oceanic nutrient limitation, Nat.
Geosci., 6, 701–710, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1765" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1765</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib86"><label>86</label><mixed-citation>
Moore, J. K., Doney, S. C., and Lindsay, K.: Upper ocean ecosystem dynamics
and iron cycling in a global three-dimensional model, Global Biogeochem.
Cy., 18, 1–21, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GB002220" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GB002220</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib87"><label>87</label><mixed-citation>
Moore, K., Doney, S. C., Lindsay, K., Mahowald, N., and Michaels,
A. F.: Nitrogen fixation amplifies the ocean biogeochemical response to
decadal timescale variations in mineral dust deposition, Tellus B, 58, 560–572, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2006.00209.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2006.00209.x</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib88"><label>88</label><mixed-citation>
Morrison, H. and Gettelman, A.: A new two-moment bulk stratiform cloud
microphysics scheme in the community atmosphere model, version 3 (CAM3).
Part I: Description and numerical tests, J. Climate, 21, 3642–3659,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2105.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2105.1</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib89"><label>89</label><mixed-citation>
Myriokefalitakis, S., Tsigaridis, K., Mihalopoulos, N., Sciare, J., Nenes, A., Kawamura, K., Segers, A., and Kanakidou, M.: In-cloud oxalate formation in the global troposphere: a 3-D modeling study, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 5761–5782, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-5761-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-5761-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib90"><label>90</label><mixed-citation>
Myriokefalitakis, S., Daskalakis, N., Mihalopoulos, N., Baker, A. R., Nenes, A., and Kanakidou, M.: Changes in dissolved iron deposition to the oceans driven by human activity: a 3-D global modelling study, Biogeosciences, 12, 3973–3992, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-3973-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-3973-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib91"><label>91</label><mixed-citation>
Myriokefalitakis, S., Ito, A., Kanakidou, M., Nenes, A., Krol, M. C., Mahowald, N. M., Scanza, R. A., Hamilton, D. S., Johnson, M. S., Meskhidze, N., Kok, J. F., Guieu, C., Baker, A. R., Jickells, T. D., Sarin, M. M., Bikkina, S., Shelley, R., Bowie, A., Perron, M. M. G., and Duce, R. A.: Reviews and syntheses: the GESAMP atmospheric iron deposition model intercomparison study, Biogeosciences, 15, 6659–6684, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-6659-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-6659-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib92"><label>92</label><mixed-citation>
Neale, R. B., Chen, C. C., Gettelman, A., Lauritzen, P. H., Park, S.,
Williamson, D. L., Conley, A. J., Garcia, R., Kinnison, D., Lamarque, J. F.,
Marsh, D., Mills, M., Smith, A. K., Tilmes, S., Vitt, F., Morrison, H.,
Cameron-Smith, P., Collins, W. D., Iacono, M. J., Easter, R. C., Ghan, S.
J., Liu, X., Rasch, P. J., and Taylor, M. A.: Description of the NCAR
Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 5.0), Tech.  Rep.  NCAR/TN-486+STR,  National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib93"><label>93</label><mixed-citation>
Oakes, M., Ingall, E. D., Lai, B., Shafer, M. M., Hays, M. D., Liu, Z. G.,
Russell, A. G., and Weber, R. J.: Iron solubility related to particle sulfur
content in source emission and ambient fine particles, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 46, 6637–6644, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es300701c" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es300701c</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib94"><label>94</label><mixed-citation>
O'Dowd, C. D. and de Leeuw, G.: Marine aerosol production: a review of the
current knowledge, Philos. T. Roy. Soc. A,
365, 1753–1774, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2007.2043" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2007.2043</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib95"><label>95</label><mixed-citation>
Olgun, N., Duggen, S., Croot, P. L., Delmelle, P., Dietze, H., Schacht, U.,
Óskarsson, N., Siebe, C., Auer, A., and Garbe-Schönberg, D.: Surface
ocean iron fertilization: The role of airborne volcanic ash from subduction
zone and hot spot volcanoes and related iron fluxes into the Pacific Ocean,
Global Biogeochem. Cy., 25, GB4001, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GB003761" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GB003761</a>,
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib96"><label>96</label><mixed-citation>
Panias, D., Taxiarchou, M., Paspaliaris, I., and Kontopoulos, A.: Mechanisms
of dissolution of iron oxides in aqueus oxalions, Hydrometallurgy, 42,
257–265, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib97"><label>97</label><mixed-citation>
Paris, R., Desboeufs, K. V., Formenti, P., Nava, S., and Chou, C.: Chemical characterisation of iron in dust and biomass burning aerosols during AMMA-SOP0/DABEX: implication for iron solubility, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 4273–4282, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-4273-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-4273-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib98"><label>98</label><mixed-citation>
Paris, R., Desboeufs, K. V., and Journet, E.: Variability of dust iron
solubility in atmospheric waters: Investigation of the role of oxalate
organic complexation, Atmos. Environ., 45, 6510–6517,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.08.068" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.08.068</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib99"><label>99</label><mixed-citation>
Perlwitz, J. P., Pérez García-Pando, C., and Miller, R. L.: Predicting the mineral composition of dust aerosols – Part 1: Representing key processes, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 11593–11627, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-11593-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-11593-2015</a>, 2015a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib100"><label>100</label><mixed-citation>
Perlwitz, J. P., Pérez García-Pando, C., and Miller, R. L.: Predicting the mineral composition of dust aerosols – Part 2: Model evaluation and identification of key processes with observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 11629–11652, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-11629-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-11629-2015</a>, 2015b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib101"><label>101</label><mixed-citation>
Price, C. A.: Iron compounds and plant nutrition, Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol.,
19, 239–248, 1968.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib102"><label>102</label><mixed-citation>
Reddington, C. L., Spracklen, D. V., Artaxo, P., Ridley, D. A., Rizzo, L. V., and Arana, A.: Analysis of particulate emissions from tropical biomass burning using a global aerosol model and long-term surface observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 11083–11106, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-11083-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-11083-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib103"><label>103</label><mixed-citation>
Rémy, S., Veira, A., Paugam, R., Sofiev, M., Kaiser, J. W., Marenco, F., Burton, S. P., Benedetti, A., Engelen, R. J., Ferrare, R., and Hair, J. W.: Two global data sets of daily fire emission injection heights since 2003, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 2921–2942, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-2921-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-2921-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib104"><label>104</label><mixed-citation>
Ridley, D. A., Heald, C. L., Kok, J. F., and Zhao, C.: An observationally constrained estimate of global dust aerosol optical depth, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 15097–15117, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-15097-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-15097-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib105"><label>105</label><mixed-citation>
Rogan, N., Achterberg, E. P., Le Moigne, F. A. C., Marsay, C. M., Tagliabue,
A., and Williams, R. G.: Volcanic ash as an oceanic iron source and sink,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 2732–2740, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL067905" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL067905</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib106"><label>106</label><mixed-citation>
Scanza, R. A., Mahowald, N., Ghan, S., Zender, C. S., Kok, J. F., Liu, X., Zhang, Y., and Albani, S.: Modeling dust as component minerals in the Community Atmosphere Model: development of framework and impact on radiative forcing, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 537–561, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-537-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-537-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib107"><label>107</label><mixed-citation>
Scanza, R. A., Hamilton, D. S., Perez Garcia-Pando, C., Buck, C., Baker, A., and Mahowald, N. M.: Atmospheric processing of iron in mineral and combustion aerosols: development of an intermediate-complexity mechanism suitable for Earth system models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 14175–14196, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-14175-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-14175-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib108"><label>108</label><mixed-citation>
Schroth, A. W., Crusius, J., Sholkovitz, E. R., and Bostick, B. C.: Iron
solubility driven by speciation in dust sources to the ocean, Nat. Geosci.,
2, 337–340, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo501" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo501</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib109"><label>109</label><mixed-citation>
Schutgens, N., Tsyro, S., Gryspeerdt, E., Goto, D., Weigum, N., Schulz, M., and Stier, P.: On the spatio-temporal representativeness of observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 9761–9780, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-9761-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-9761-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib110"><label>110</label><mixed-citation>
Shi, Z., Krom, M. D., Jickells, T. D., Bonneville, S., Carslaw, K. S.,
Mihalopoulos, N., Baker, A. R., and Benning, L. G.: Impacts on iron
solubility in the mineral dust by processes in the source region and the
atmosphere: A review, Aeolian Res., 5, 21–42,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeolia.2012.03.001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeolia.2012.03.001</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib111"><label>111</label><mixed-citation>
Shoenfelt, E. M., Sun, J., Winckler, G., Kaplan, M. R., Borunda, A. L.,
Farrell, K. R., Moreno, P. I., Gaiero, D. M., Recasens, C., Sambrotto, R. N., and Bostick, B. C.: High particulate iron(II) content in glacially sourced
dusts enhances productivity of a model diatom, Sci. Adv., 3, 1–10,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700314" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700314</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib112"><label>112</label><mixed-citation>
Sholkovitz, E. R., Sedwick, P. N., Church, T. M., Baker, A. R., and Powell,
C. F.: Fractional solubility of aerosol iron: Synthesis of a global-scale
data set, Geochim. Cosmochim. Ac., 89, 173–189,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2012.04.022" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2012.04.022</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib113"><label>113</label><mixed-citation>
Smith, M. B., Mahowald, N. M., Albani, S., Perry, A., Losno, R., Qu, Z., Marticorena, B., Ridley, D. A., and Heald, C. L.: Sensitivity of the interannual variability of mineral aerosol simulations to meteorological forcing dataset, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 3253–3278, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-3253-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-3253-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib114"><label>114</label><mixed-citation>
Sofiev, M., Ermakova, T., and Vankevich, R.: Evaluation of the smoke-injection height from wild-land fires using remote-sensing data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 1995–2006, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-1995-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-1995-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib115"><label>115</label><mixed-citation>
Solmon, F., Chuang, P. Y., Meskhidze, N., and Chen, Y.: Acidic processing of
mineral dust iron by anthropogenic compounds over the north Pacific Ocean,
J. Geophys. Res., 114, D02305, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010417" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010417</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib116"><label>116</label><mixed-citation>
Strong, C. L., Bullard, J. E., Dubois, C., McTainsh, G. H., and Baddock, M.
C.: Impact of wildfire on interdune ecology and sediments: An example from
the Simpson Desert, Australia, J. Arid Environ., 74, 1577–1581,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2010.05.032" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2010.05.032</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib117"><label>117</label><mixed-citation>
Teixeira, J. C., Carvalho, A. C., Tuccella, P., Curci, G., and Rocha, A.:
WRF-chem sensitivity to vertical resolution during a saharan dust event,
Phys. Chem. Earth, 94, 188–195, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2015.04.002" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2015.04.002</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib118"><label>118</label><mixed-citation>
Tobo, Y., Adachi, K., DeMott, P. J., Hill, T. C. J., Hamilton, D. S.,
Mahowald, N. M., Nagatsuka, N., Ohata, S., Uetake, J., Kondo, Y., and Koike,
M.: Glacially sourced dust as a potentially significant source of ice
nucleating particles, Nat. Geosci., 12, 253–258,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0314-x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0314-x</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib119"><label>119</label><mixed-citation>
Turquety, S., Logan, J. A., Jacob, D. J., Hudman, R. C., Leung, F. Y.,
Heald, C. L., Yantosca, R. M., Wu, S., Emmons, L. K., Edwards, D. P., and
Sachse, G. W.: Inventory of boreal fire emissions for North America in 2004:
Importance of peat burning and pyroconvective injection, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 112, 1–13, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007281" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007281</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib120"><label>120</label><mixed-citation>
Ulery, A. L. and Graham, R. C.: Forest Fire Effects on Soil Color and
Texture, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 57, 135–140,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1993.03615995005700010026x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1993.03615995005700010026x</a>, 1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib121"><label>121</label><mixed-citation>
Wagenbrenner, N. S., Chung, S. H., and Lamb, B. K.: A large source of dust
missing in Particulate Matter emission inventories? Wind erosion of
post-fire landscapes, Elem. Sci. Anth., 5, 1–10, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.185" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.185</a>,
2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib122"><label>122</label><mixed-citation>
Wagner, R., Jähn, M., and Schepanski, K.: Wildfires as a source of airborne mineral dust – revisiting a conceptual model using large-eddy simulation (LES), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 11863–11884, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-11863-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-11863-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib123"><label>123</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, R., Balkanski, Y., Boucher, O., Bopp, L., Chappell, A., Ciais, P., Hauglustaine, D., Peñuelas, J., and Tao, S.: Sources, transport and deposition of iron in the global atmosphere, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 6247–6270, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-6247-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-6247-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib124"><label>124</label><mixed-citation>
Ward, D. E. and Hardy, C. C.: Smoke emission from wildland fires, Environ.
Int., 17, 117–137, 1991.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib125"><label>125</label><mixed-citation>
Ward, D. S., Kloster, S., Mahowald, N. M., Rogers, B. M., Randerson, J. T., and Hess, P. G.: The changing radiative forcing of fires: global model estimates for past, present and future, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 10857–10886, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-10857-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-10857-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib126"><label>126</label><mixed-citation>
Weber, R. J., Guo, H., Russell, A. G., and Nenes, A.: High aerosol acidity
despite declining atmospheric sulfate concentrations over the past 15 years,
Nat. Geosci., 9, 1–5, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/NGEO2665" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/NGEO2665</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib127"><label>127</label><mixed-citation>
Wu, C., Liu, X., Diao, M., Zhang, K., Gettelman, A., Lu, Z., Penner, J. E., and Lin, Z.: Direct comparisons of ice cloud macro- and microphysical properties simulated by the Community Atmosphere Model version 5 with HIPPO aircraft observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 4731–4749, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-4731-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-4731-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib128"><label>128</label><mixed-citation>
Wu, M., Liu, X., Zhang, L., Wu, C., Lu, Z., Ma, P. L., Wang, H., Tilmes, S.,
Mahowald, N., Matsui, H., and Easter, R. C.: Impacts of Aerosol Dry
Deposition on Black Carbon Spatial Distributions and Radiative Effects in
the Community Atmosphere Model CAM5, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10,
1150–1171, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2017MS001219" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2017MS001219</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib129"><label>129</label><mixed-citation>
Xu, N. and Gao, Y.: Characterization of hematite dissolution affected by
oxalate coating, kinetics and pH, Appl. Geochem., 23, 783–793,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2007.12.026" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2007.12.026</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib130"><label>130</label><mixed-citation>
Yamasoe, M. A., Artaxo, P., Miguel, A. H., and Allen, A. G.: Chemical
composition of aerosol particles from direct emissions of vegetation fires
in the Amazon Basin: Water-soluble species and trace elements, Atmos.
Environ., 34, 1641–1653, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00329-5" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00329-5</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib131"><label>131</label><mixed-citation>
Zender, C. S., Bian, H., and Newman, D.: Mineral Dust Entrainment and
Deposition (DEAD) model: Description and 1990s dust climatology, J. Geophys.
Res., 108, 4416, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002775" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002775</a>, 2003.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib132"><label>132</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, Y., Mahowald, N., Scanza, R. A., Journet, E., Desboeufs, K., Albani, S., Kok, J. F., Zhuang, G., Chen, Y., Cohen, D. D., Paytan, A., Patey, M. D., Achterberg, E. P., Engelbrecht, J. P., and Fomba, K. W.: Modeling the global emission, transport and deposition of trace elements associated with mineral dust, Biogeosciences, 12, 5771–5792, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-5771-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-5771-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib133"><label>133</label><mixed-citation>
Zhu, X., Prospero, J., and Millero, F.: Diel variability of soluble Fe(II)
and soluble total Fe in North Africa dust in the trade winds at Barbados, J.
Geophys. Res., 102, 21297–21305, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib134"><label>134</label><mixed-citation>
Zhuang, G., Yi, Z., Duce, R. A., and Brown, P. R.: Link between iron and
sulphur cycles suggested by detection of Fe(n) in remote marine aerosols,
Nature, 355, 537–539, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/355537a0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/355537a0</a>, 1992.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
