The manuscript " Deciphering Dust Provenance and Transport Pathways Across Northern China's Source-Sink Systems" collected a series of transported dust samples from Taklimakan, Guerbantonggute, Alxa Plateau, Hexi Corridor, Heihe River in the northwest China primary dust sources, analyzed their rare earth element and trace element ratios, quantified the contribution of dust sources in the sink area by multi-methods. This study provides very good ideas for the identification and quantification of dust material sources in arid areas. The manuscript quantified Gurbantunggut dust to CLP, resolving long-standing debates over Qaidam Basin's overstated role; revealed the Alxa Plateau's dual role as a topographic filter of direct Taklimakan dust while amplifying Gurbantunggut fluxes via orographic uplift; and identified Taklimakan dust the main dust source to the CLP. The paper was written very well, the data used in this study is reliable and used a series of data sheets to illustrate the problem. The discussion parts about the topography-modulated dust recycling are very interesting and substantial, and the provenance issues are described in detail. The transport pathway and contributions of dust sources to deposition regions were very important, and authors need provide a model to explain it. In a total, the paper is logically clear, and could be published.

This study employs geochemical fingerprinting techniques to investigate this important scientific question, demonstrating a clear research approach and possessing certain novelty and academic value. To assist in bringing your manuscript to publication standard, I offer the following comments and suggestions for your consideration and necessary revisions.

1. Briefly mention the sampling timeframe or frequency in the abstract to indicate whether the data represent conditions under varying meteorological scenarios.
2. Line 17-18, the “Gurbantunggut” desert is mentioned twice in the list of potential source areas, which may be a redundant error.
3. In the Abstract and Line 141, authors should identify specific sampling times.
4. Line 55-56, the author posed the question "how do elevation barriers and sedimentary reworking alter provenance signatures across spatiotemporal scales?" Regarding the term "provenance signatures", it is advisable that you adopt a consistent expression throughout the paper. Using multiple translations or varied expressions for this technical term may lead to confusion among readers and undermine the clarity and professionalism of your work.
5. Line 83-91, while listing the traditional provenance methods and stating that they conflate primary emissions with recycled material, more detailed explanations are needed. For each method (bulk geochemical analyses, detrital zircon U - Pb dating, heavy mineral assemblages), describe specifically how the method fails to distinguish between the two types of materials. On the other hand, it is mentioned that these tools are “underutilized in dust studies,” but no explanation is given as to why. Understanding the reasons for their limited use in this field could help to further justify the study's choice of methodology and provide context for the potential significance of the research.
6. Line 125-126, The statement “Here we defined Taklimakan Desert (K1~K7) and Gurbantunggut Desert (G1~G7) are upwind regions for these two regions were primary emission areas” contains a grammar error and is a bit unclear. It should be something like “Here we defined the Taklimakan Desert (K1~K7) and Gurbantunggut Desert (G1~G7) as upwind regions because these two regions are primary emission areas.” Secondly, in the methods section, it is defined that the Taklimakan and Gurbantunggut deserts are primary emission areas. However, in the findings, it is also stated that these two deserts dominate as primary sources. It seems unusual that a definition in the methods is repeated as a main conclusion. Could you please explain the reasoning behind this?
7. In Figure 1, the labeling is not in any order.
8. Table 1, please clarify the reason for the inconsistent sampling heights. How does this variation in height potentially affect the characteristics of the collected dust samples and the interpretation of the results? It would be beneficial to discuss the implications of this sampling design in more detail to ensure the validity and comparability of the data.
9. On line 96, it is presented as "multi-dimensional scaling", while on line 164, it is written as "Multidimensional Scaling". For the sake of consistency and to enhance the overall clarity and professionalism of the manuscript, it is necessary to use a unified expression for this term throughout the text.
10. The results of the PCA analysis might be clearer using a table, also, are there some values in the picture that exceed 100? Several figures lack sufficient labeling and clear legends, hindering independent interpretation. For example, Figures 2 and 5 necessitate more detailed explanations of elements and ratios in their captions or legends.
11. The manuscript includes numerous figures for data presentation. However, some figures are overly complex, featuring redundant display of certain elements and ratios across multiple panels. This redundancy detracts from the main findings. Please streamline figure design to highlight essential data and trends, improving overall readability.
12. The study identifies regional variations in dust geochemistry. However, the explanation should more thoroughly address the potential impact of anthropogenic activities (industry, agriculture) and climate change (precipitation, temperature), as these factors significantly influence dust sources and transport.