Can the Stockholm convention address the spectrum of chemicals currently under regulatory scrutiny? Advocating a more prominent role for modeling in POP screening assessment.

Frameworks for chemical regulation are based on the science at the time they were written. Today some regulations are being applied to a much broader spectrum of chemicals than we had knowledge of when the regulations were written. This entails a risk that the regulations are being used outside of their chemical application domain. This question is explored using the POP screening assessment in the Stockholm convention, which was developed 20 years ago. Using perfluorinated alkyl acids (PFAAs) as an example, it is shown that the assessment can lead to false negative conclusions. A second case study using octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) illustrates that there is also a risk of false positives. The risk for false negative classification of PFAAs is due to the inclusion of a screening criterion - bioaccumulation - that is not a requirement for adverse effects of chemicals in remote regions. For D4 the risk of false positive classification stems from the four screening criteria (persistence, bioaccumulation, long-range transport, and adverse effects) applying to different environmental media/compartments. The major lesson is that applying the POP screening procedure to the broad spectrum of chemicals in modern commerce will require that we rely less on the individual screening criteria and more on the comparison of estimated exposure and the thresholds for effects stipulated in Annex D, paragraph 2 of the convention. Models have an important role to play in this context and should become more strongly integrated into the POP screening process.