This manuscript presents a comprehensive validation of the dust-dominated total AOD derived from the PMAp CDR, with a particular focus on dust detection and AOD retrieval accuracy. The study uses high-quality AERONET ground-based observations across multiple global dust hotspots and applies robust comparison techniques, including both general and dust-specific evaluation metrics. The analysis is detailed, and the case study coverage is broad, making this an important contribution to satellite aerosol product validation literature. In addition, the manuscript is well-structured and the goals are clearly stated. The validation strategy is sound, and the distinction between “dust-dominated” AOD and conventional DAOD is clearly explained. The study highlights strengths and limitations of the PMAp dust product and provides guidance for future product use and development. I recommend the paper for publication after minor revisions to address the comments below.

Scientific/Technical Comments

1. line-594, section 5 on definition and Interpretation of Dust-Related AOD.

The definition of “dust-related AOD” as the mean AOD within grid cells where any dust detection occurred, may blur interpretation in regions with aerosol mixtures (e.g., Sahel during biomass burning). Please expand the discussion on the implications of this choice: how might this affect conclusions from Figure 16 and the seasonal diagnostics? Could a sensitivity test (e.g., thresholding dust pixel fraction) be included or at least recommended?

2. line-581, section 4.4 the Central Asia region shows a consistent positive bias. The authors could elaborate further: are there known limitations in the GOME-2 GLER surface reflectance climatology for this region? Could dust mineralogy or vertical structure differ significantly in a way that violates retrieval assumptions (e.g., stronger absorption)? In addition, several regions exhibit sporadic high-AOD outliers. Even a brief diagnostic on a few cases (e.g., examining viewing angle, surface reflectance, or retrieval geometry) could help determine whether these are algorithm edge cases. This would provide useful guidance for future product refinement.

3. Line 374: The statement that AERONET AOD distributions for PMAp “dust” and “other” are clearly distinct in the Saharan outflow seems overstated. The figure shows substantial overlap, please qualify this interpretation.

4. Line 398: Clarify which comparison approach corresponds to which figure. Explicitly stating that Figure 5 corresponds to comparisons 1 and 2, and that Figure A2.1 represents comparison 3, would improve reader orientation.

5. line-301, the threshold (α ≤ 0.75) is used to identify coarse-mode dominance. Please clarify whether this is based on literature or derived from your Figure 4. If the latter, a forward reference would help readers understand the justification.

Other minor comments:

6. Line 104: “Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD)” was already defined; abbreviation does not need repeating.

7. Line 181: Only introduce full name of AERONET at first mention.

8. Line 205: Add degree symbols (°) to latitude and longitude coordinates.

9. Line 300: Only define “Single Scattering Albedo (SSA)” at first use.