The origin and evolution of assessment criteria for persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals and persistent organic pollutants (POPs)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
General public concern over the effects of persistent chemicals began in the early 1960s. Since then, significant scientific advances have increased our understanding of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals and the properties and processes that influence their fates in, and adverse effects on, human health and the environment. In addition to the scientific advances, a number of legislations and agreements for national, international, and global identification and control of PBT chemicals have been adopted. However, some of the rationales and thoughts that were relied upon when the first criteria were developed to identify and categorize PBT chemicals and then POPs (persistent organic pollutants) have not been carried forward. Criteria have been based upon available data of neutral hydrophobic substances as reference chemicals, derived under laboratory conditions. They evolved over the last decades due to the diversification of the protection aims under various national regulatory frameworks and international agreements, advances in methods for estimation of physical/chemical properties, and the identification of chemicals which are non-traditional POPs. Criteria are not defined purely by science; they also are subject to the aims of policy. This paper offers a historical perspective on the development of criteria for PBT chemicals and POPs. It also offers suggestions for rationalization of protection goals, describes some emerging procedures for identification of compounds of concern, and proposes information that needs to be considered when applying criteria to screening and/or evaluation of new chemicals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".