Also, although categorization of substances susceptible to LRT is also considered in the regulations, this will not be specifically addressed.
There are a number of international and national programs that are concerned with the categorization of substances that are persistent (P or very P (vP)), bioaccumulative (B or very B (vB)), toxic (T), or have the potential for long-range transport (LRT) [1].
A key difference between these is the recommendation for the use of weight of evidence for assessment of properties relevant to the categorization of substances for P, B, and T. We believe that the use of a formal, quantitative, and transparent process of weight of evidence should be included in the guidance for the selection of appropriate data and how these are compared to the criteria.
There is inconsistency in the criteria used for categorization of various substances under regulations in the EU.
It follows that TMFs measured in the environment are a suitable tool for the evaluation of chemicals which have been in use for some time, but are less useful for the PBT categorization of new chemical substances under REACH or new PPPs under EU Regulation 1107/2009 [1107/2009
Additionally, inconsistencies between previous studies in the categorization of certain variables (i.e. substance use) within the three different Gelberg-Andersen domains, underscores the importance of judgment when placing particular variables into the three categories that comprise the model.
Table 1 Criteria for categorization of compounds as POPs and LRT substances under the SC and UNECE Persistent (P) Bioaccumulative (B) Toxic (T) Potential for long-range transport (LRT) Water: DT501 > 2 months BCF or BAF >5,000 or Log KOW >5 No specific criteria other than 'significant adverse human health and/or environmental effects' (in Article 8, 7 (a)) Air: DT50 > 2 days.
Men of substance, every one.
But is that a distinction of substance?
Instead of substance, the meeting offered symbolism.
