We wish to thank Reviewer 1 for providing a rapid and respectful review of our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to the few suggestions made by Reviewer 1.  Mainly, Reviewer 1 was suggesting that EF>5 should be described as middle impacted by anthropogenic inputs. As Reimann and de Caritat (2005) suggested, caution should be applied when attributing anthropogenic origins to a sample using the enrichment factor analysis. Indeed, large variability exist between different lithogenic sources across the world and a factor 5 difference in enrichment factor can be the result of such natural variability. However, we agree with Reviewer 1 that the presence of anthropogenic inputs in samples showing a mild (yet not significant) enrichment cannot be ruled out. We therefore suggest modifying lines 300-305 of the revised manuscript as follow:

"Amongst minor elements, V, Ni and Pb showed no significant enrichment, with median EF values of 0.4, 5.2 and 7.2, respectively (Figure 4). This indicated a prevailing crustal origin for the three metals in most aerosol samples as variability in the metal composition between different lithogenic sources can result in noticeable enrichment (5<EF<10) . Minor contribution from anthropogenic sources can, however, not be completely ruled out in the case of Ni and Pb. Sample A4 represent one exception for which Ni enrichment exceed the threshold of 10 (EF_Ni=14), potentially highlighting non-negligible inputs from anthropogenic sources in this sample."

We thank Reviewer 2 for insightful comments and additional thoughts to improve our discussion. 

We have slightly extended the discussion on modelling dust deposition in order to incorporate notions of model parametrization variability and the use of satellite to best predict small scale emission sources. We kept this discussion short as some modelling papers had limited information on the parametrisation used and data used for model validation and we did not want to display erroneous information on data that was not acquired in our study. 

Regarding the EF analysis. We have made small changes to the text to suggest minor input of elements with EF>5, suggesting a possible origin from southern Africa country. However, in the absence of substantial proof of origin, the lack of knowledge on mining emission fingerprint in the atmosphere and owing to the existing large variability in soil composition worldwide we did remain confident that a significant anthropogenic influence in these low EF remain questionable while no further evidence is available.