Assistant Professor

Dept. of Chemistry

Government College

Kota,  Rajasthan, India 

Abstract

Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) have accumulated in polar environments as a result of long-range transport from urban/industrial and agricultural source regions in the mid-latitudes. Climate change has been recognized as a factor capable of influencing POP levels and trends in the Arctic, but little empirical data have been available previously. A growing number of recent studies have now addressed the consequences of climate change for the fate of Arctic contaminants, as reviewed and assessed by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP). For example, correlations between POP temporal trends in air or biota and climate indices, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation Index, have been found. Besides the climate indices, temperature, precipitation and sea-ice were identified as important climate parameters influencing POP levels in the Arctic environment. However, the physical changes are interlinked with complex ecological changes, including new species habitats and predator/prey relationships, resulting in a vast diversity of processes directly or indirectly affecting levels and trends of POPs.

Keywords: Organic Pollutants, Climate Change, Persistant, Assessment, Habitats, Trends, Species.

Introduction

The issue illustrate that the complexity of physical, chemical, and biological processes, and the rapid developments with regard to both climate change and chemical contamination, require greater interdisciplinary scientific exchange

While some climate and biological parameters have been linked to POP levels in the Arctic, mechanisms underlying these correlations are usually not understood and need more work.[1-2] Going forward there is a need for a stronger collaborative approach to understanding these processes due to high uncertainties and the incremental process of increasing knowledge of these chemicals. There is also a need to support and encourage community-based studies and the co-production of knowledge, including the utilization of Indigenous Knowledge, for interpreting trends of POPs in light of climate change.

The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) was established in 1991 as an international program for monitoring and assessing Arctic pollution under the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy.[3-4] It is now a Working Group of the Arctic Council, with the mission to “monitor and assess the status of the Arctic region with respect to pollution and climate change issues by (i) facilitating and advancing the coordinated implementation of relevant circumpolar monitoring and research, (ii) documenting levels and trends, pathways and processes, and effects on ecosystems and humans, (iii) distinguishing human-induced changes from changes caused by natural phenomena and (iv) proposing actions to reduce associated threats for consideration by governments and relevant organizations”[5-6]. In this context, AMAP has produced a series of assessments that address the occurrence and trends of POPs and, more recently, of chemicals and groups of substances that may not meet the classical definition of POPs, within the Arctic. The Arctic area defined by AMAP is shown. It includes the Arctic Ocean, the northern seas of the North Atlantic Ocean and the Bering Sea, as well as adjacent land masses within circumpolar countries[7-8]

Boundaries of the Arctic. The red line defines the AMAP area of the Arctic. The map shows other boundaries that are often used: the Arctic circle (66°30′N), the 10 °C July isotherm, the treeline as well as the marine boundary of the Arctic Ocean.

POPs are regulated under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Stockholm Convention on POPs, based on their ability to persist in the environment, to bioaccumulate, to be transported over long distances and to cause adverse effects.[7] The Stockholm Convention's POPs Global Monitoring Plan (GMP) tracks the effectiveness of bans and restrictions on listed chemicals using temporal trend data, including Arctic monitoring data, primarily from human tissues and air, but monitoring data for other media are accepted as well.

In the first Stockholm Convention GMP report it was stressed that climate change could have implications for interpreting POP temporal trend data[8] In response, a joint UNEP/AMAP report entitled Climate Change and POPs: Predicting the Impacts was produced, which recognized climate change as a factor capable of influencing POP levels measured in the environment and humans.[9] Therefore, it is an issue that could potentially interfere with the interpretation of temporal trends used to monitor the effectiveness of the Stockholm Convention.

Very few data were available at that time, so the report mainly hypothesized how changes in temperature and other climatic parameters could affect the environmental behavior and fate of POPs based on their physical–chemical properties. Warmer temperatures were predicted to increase primary emissions of POPs associated with volatilization from in-use products and equipment, waste sites, and stockpiles and temperature increases were considered the most important and strongest effect of climate change on POP cycling. Due to expected changes in the environmental partitioning of chemicals, warming was also predicted to increase secondary emissions of POPs from environmental stores, including revolatilization from soil, water, and particulates, leading to increased air concentrations. Additionally, releases from soil and ice would increase POP levels in aquatic environments. The environmental fate, including long-range transport of POPs would also be influenced by climate-induced changes in wind speed, precipitation, ocean currents, biotic transport, frequency of extreme weather events, and the melting of polar ice caps and glaciers. Warmer temperatures would likely increase the degradation and transformation of POPs, potentially decreasing environmental concentrations of the emitted compounds, but increasing the proportion of degradation products present in the environment. Thus, changes to the physical environment both inside and outside the Arctic would affect the transport of POPs to and their behavior in the Arctic. A modeling exercise supported these projections for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)[9,10]

Climate change and climate variability were also predicted to have effects on biodiversity, ecosystem composition and function, and food web structure and dynamics. Climate-induced changes in primary production had previously been noted as a factor that could influence the fate and bioavailability of POPs in the Arctic.[11] The UNEP/AMAP report[11] found that the available food web modeling for POPs,[12] and empirical observations for freshwater fish,[13] showed contradictory results, possibly due to different ecosystems being studied (pelagic marine versus benthic freshwater), and highlighted the lack of understanding regarding the effects of climate change on primary production and POP cycling. The report also considered the potential effects of warmer temperatures on toxicokinetics and the toxicity of POPs to wildlife and humans, e.g. toxic effects of POPs on wildlife could increase with stress caused by changes in environmental conditions.

The AMAP-coordinated Arctic Health Risks (ArcRisk) project[14-16] addressed many of the predicted effects of climate change on POPs with a focus on the European Arctic. ArcRisk used modeling tools to study the atmospheric and oceanic transport of POPs to the Arctic and the subsequent bioaccumulation of POPs in the Arctic marine food web under present climate conditions and projected future climate scenarios. Most modeling results projected only modest changes to levels of POPs in air, soils, and water as a result of a warming climate.[17-18] However, the ability to model climate-related impacts on POP bioaccumulation was limited by the lack of understanding regarding the effects of climate change on primary production, species distributions, and trophic interactions.

The rapid changes in the Arctic induced by increasing temperatures have been addressed by several organizations, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[19-21] Together with the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) and the Working Group for the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) of the Arctic Council, AMAP prepared the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment in 2005[19] and recently published updates on climate change in the Arctic.[22-23] The annual average warming in the Arctic was found to be three times that of the global mean .Annual precipitation seems to be increasing as well, with less precipitation falling as snow and more as rain in some regions. Sea ice extent is decreasing . and multi-year sea ice is being increasingly replaced by annual ice. Other relevant climate change-related processes include ocean acidification, sea-level rise and a higher frequency of extreme weather events.[23] All these changes have direct and indirect effects on biodiversity and ecosystems.[22,23]

Temperature and sea ice change in the Arctic. (A) Arctic (blue line) and global (red line) mean annual land surface air temperature anomalies for the period 1900–2019 relative to the 1981–2010 mean value. Arctic measurements taken from land stations north of 60°N.[26] (B) Spatial pattern in Arctic seasonal surface air temperature for the period 1991–2020 relative to a base period of 1950–1981 in cold (November–April) and warm (May–October) seasons. Source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/, and (C) Arctic Ocean sea ice extent in March (maximum) and September (minimum) relative to mean for 1981–2010 (https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/).

Recent reviews of climate and POP interactions[24-25] provide an additional foundation for this themed issue. McKinney et al.[24] reviewed the literature on climate change-induced ecological changes and alterations in POP exposures. They concluded that dietary changes linked to reduced sea ice were associated with higher contaminant levels in some marine species, but the influence of changing trophic interactions on POP levels and trends varied widely in both magnitude and direction. Ma et al.[25] found there was observational evidence indicating that climate variation had an effect on POP levels in biotic and abiotic environments. However, they noted that the statistical power of current Arctic time series for POPs in other media than air was limited and required more monitoring time points to detect associations with climate parameters.

Many of the wildlife species referenced in the review articles in this themed issue, such as seabirds, seals, and beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) form part of the diet of Arctic indigenous peoples,[27] and can thus provide evidence of climate change effects on POP trends that is valuable for understanding human exposures. The ArcRisk project considered human dietary-exposure scenarios related to the impact of climate change, but noted the complexity involved due to multiple unknowns, including future contaminant trends in fish, potential changes in fishery supply, and nutritional transitions in Arctic communities.[14,15] It should be noted that the review articles in this themed issue do not consider the possible combined effects of climate change and POPs on human health. However, recent AMAP Human Health assessments,[27,28] while not specifically focusing on exposure to POPs, have concluded that the combined effects of climate warming, anthropogenic contaminants, and zoonotic diseases represent a significant risk for subsistent food and drinking water supplies of northern communities.

The involvement of Arctic indigenous and local communities in environmental monitoring and research is an important aspect of the work on the influence of climate on contaminants and was addressed in the recent AMAP assessment on climate change and POPs/CEACs[1] and also in a forthcoming mercury assessment.[29] Close collaborations between scientists and local and indigenous communities, especially in the Canadian Arctic and Greenland, have enabled continuous monitoring of marine mammals and freshwater fish and development of strong time series for POPs. The recent assessments have addressed possible ways that Indigenous Knowledge of climate-related changes in local physical and ecological conditions could be more effectively utilized for interpreting the influence of climate change on POP and mercury trends in wildlife with additional capacity building.

Discussion

Over the past ten years, a growing number of studies have addressed the consequences of climate change for the fate of Arctic contaminants, for example targeting correlations between POP temporal trends in air or biota and climate indices. These are large-scale climate parameters reflecting variations in air pressure for a certain region, with consequences for air mass transport, temperature and precipitation. The Arctic Oscillation Index (AO), North Atlantic Oscillation Index (NAO) and Pacific/North American Pattern (PNA)[40] have been found to be particularly relevant for climate patterns in the Arctic.

In general, there are now many observations that suggest linkages exist between climate-induced changes and the fate of Arctic contaminants. However, these linkages are mainly correlative and the causal relationships behind these observations are still poorly understood. This is related to the multitude of direct and indirect effects of climate change on biological, chemical and physical processes that interact to influence the fate of contaminants within a rapidly warming Arctic, as illustrated in a conceptual approach .

Conceptual approach to changes in chemical emissions, environmental conditions, and ecosystems that took place in the past and are projected for the next 100 years, illustrating the complexity in trends of POPs and CEACs in the Arctic under future climate change. Temporal trends of PCBs are used as examples of legacy POPs. Dashed lines indicate predicted relative trends compared to modelled or measured trends (solid lines) for the period from 1970–2020. Shaded areas indicate relative uncertainty in projected trends.

1. Concentration changes of POPs in Arctic air and ocean waters driven by climate change are predicted to be small compared to reductions in concentrations that can be achieved by reducing primary emissions.

2. Greater rates of primary and secondary emissions of many POPs can be expected globally under climate change due to temperature-driven increases in volatilization.

3. Chemical volatilization and degradation are two counteracting climate-sensitive processes affecting Arctic air concentrations. Both are expected to increase under higher temperatures related to climate change although magnitudes are not known.

4. Other predicted climate change-related developments and events likely to affect POP sources and emissions include increased economic activity and population growth in the Arctic.

5. Climate change perturbations are resulting in the re-mobilization of POPs within and between air, water, ice, snow, soils, and sediments in the Arctic. Examples include increased POP concentrations in lake sediments resulting from melting glaciers and permafrost slumps.

6. Increasing concentrations observed for some POPs in Arctic air in recent years have been attributed to their release and volatilization from melting and diminished extent of sea ice.

7. Increased primary productivity under climate change is enhancing the drawdown and transfer of contaminants from surface waters to deeper waters through the process known as the ‘biological pump’. This process is likely leading to increased sequestration of POPs from the atmosphere into deep ocean waters and sediments.

8. Positive correlations exist between some POP concentrations in Arctic air and climate oscillation indices. Larger seasonal variations occurred in POP concentrations when the Arctic Oscillation index was negative.

9. Local emissions of some POPs and CEACs (e.g. PCBs, PFASs, flame retardants, PAHs) have been shown near Arctic communities, military and industrial sites, and infrastructures (e.g. airports). Human activities (e.g. shipping, tourism, oil and gas development, fisheries) are likely to increase with future changes in climate, leading to potential increases in local emissions of contaminants within the Arctic.

10. There are indications that the reduction of sea ice due to climate warming is leading to a general increase of sea spray aerosols in the Arctic. This implies that re-emissions of water-soluble, surface-active POPs such as PFASs to air and coastal environments will increase as well.

11. Extreme weather events (e.g. severe rain events, snowstorms, and unseasonal warming in parts of the Arctic) as well as forest fires, are becoming more frequent. Short-term elevated air concentrations of PAHs and PCBs in the high Arctic have been traced to wildfires in boreal forests of Canada and Russia. Increased discharge volumes from Eurasian rivers have been associated with increased loading of PAHs to the Arctic Ocean.

12. Natural halocarbons (nHCs) are likely to increase in the Arctic over this century due to climate change effects on producing species (phytoplankton and macroalgae) with potential, but uncertain impacts on stratospheric ozone.

13. First-year ice now dominates ice coverage over large parts of the Arctic and is coupled with earlier or erratic thawing. The melting of brine-rich, first-year ice may result in more efficient delivery of POPs to organisms at the base of the marine food web.

14. Permafrost thaw has been shown to impact lake water chemistry in the Canadian Arctic and influence the condition of landlocked Arctic char via impacts on their dietary sources.

15. Significant dietary shifts are being observed in Arctic animals due to climate-driven migrations of species from temperate waters (i.e. borealization), and declines in sea ice that are changing movements and behaviors of ice-dependent species (e.g. polar bears shifting from hunting on pack ice to foraging on land).

16. The combination of contaminant exposure and sea ice decline has synergistic adverse effects on lipid metabolism in polar bears, as differences between biomarker responses of less- and more-polluted bears showed greater contrast during a period with poor sea ice conditions.

17. There are too many unknowns and variable results among species and ecosystems to firmly conclude the net effect of climate change-driven impacts on species interactions and food web contaminant accumulation.

18. Positive associations have been found between annual mean concentrations of many POPs in biota and climate oscillation indices over time, sometimes with time lags, suggesting that changes in air mass transport from North America and Europe toward the Arctic can influence POP levels in biota.

19. Positive associations were also found between some POP levels in landlocked Arctic char and climate-related parameters, including temperature and precipitation. Thawing permafrost and the resulting release of particulate matter and carbon into lake systems was generally linked with increased POP levels in Arctic char and freshwater amphipods.

20. Annual mean concentrations of many POPs in biota were associated with sea ice extent (including both negative and positive associations). Some associations between climate parameters and POP levels showed time lags.

21. Dietary changes affected POP exposures of some Arctic animals. In general, effects on long-term trends of POPs were small, but temporary perturbations or changes in long-term rates were observed.

22. Including climate parameters in time trend analyses did not affect the overall direction of the trends (i.e. increase or decrease of POP concentrations) but could affect the magnitude of the annual changes (i.e. towards a faster or slower rate of change).

23. Effects of climate on trends of POPs have not been studied in the Antarctic to any significant degree, but are likely to occur given the similarities in polar environments.[35]

Results

As noted by Bartlett et al.[30] information about primary emissions, including variations over time and space, is fundamental for assessing changes in the fate of POPs and CEACs, including their transport to the Arctic and distribution processes between different media. Temporally- and spatially-resolved global or circumpolar emission inventories only exist for a few POPs (PCBs, DDT, HCHs) and PAHs. Therefore, new approaches, such as inverse modeling are required to establish emission patterns, in particular for those contaminants where emissions are associated with the entire lifecycle of consumer products (i.e. production, use, and disposal) rather than, for example, industrial or agricultural sources. Increasing temperatures and cryospheric changes have increased the mobility and transfer of POPs between physical environmental compartments of the Arctic through various mechanisms, including enhanced volatilization of contaminants from water, snow and ice, and re-mobilization of contaminants from melting of sea ice (i.e. multi-year and first-year ice), glacier ablation, and permafrost thaw, degradation and slumping.[30,31]

Climate change and a diminishing cryosphere will likely increase human activity in the Arctic, including shipping, tourism, and industrial operations, as well as promote the expansion of urban areas.[30,31] Additionally, adaptations to climate change might also include changes in lifestyles, behaviors and policies. These potential developments should be considered in future research and monitoring of contaminants in the Arctic, as they can involve the use of chemicals and thus have the potential to contribute to local releases of substances widely used in consumer and industrial products, some of which may be CEACs 

Microplastic pollution is an important emerging issue in the Arctic. Microplastic particles can contain, bind and leach POPs and CEACs, and thus may serve as a source or transport vector of contaminants to the Arctic. There is a general lack of knowledge with regard to climate change-related effects on microplastics and associated contaminants, especially concerning the processes and rates of microplastic incorporation within sea ice, the effect of microplastics on sea ice properties, and the potential release of microplastics and associated contaminants from melting ice.

The reviews by Borgå et al.[32] and Vorkamp et al.[33] demonstrate that there are a vast diversity of processes through which climate change may affect contaminant exposure in Arctic ecosystems. The direction and extent of changes in POP concentrations in biota are not consistent but vary between species, ecosystems and locations. In general, higher temperatures are leading to the release of stored POPs from melting ice, glaciers and thawing permafrost into aquatic systems, where higher temperatures can also affect the uptake and elimination of POPs in cold-blooded organisms. Variations in climate oscillation indices,[40] which reflect changes in air mass movements, ocean currents, and thus contaminant transport, are correlated with changes in POP accumulation in some Arctic biota. Reductions in the amount and extent of sea ice are influencing the air–water exchange of contaminants and prey accessibility. In addition, the northward movement of subarctic species from the Atlantic and Pacific (i.e. Atlantification and borealization) also leads to increased prey-switching, with consequences for POP exposure and tissue levels . Changes in the structure and function of Arctic ecosystems are not currently predictable, but disruptive impacts on a broad range of habitats, species, and processes are likely, which in turn will disrupt the dynamics of POPs in the Arctic. As Hung et al.[31] and Vorkamp et al.[33] have demonstrated, many POP time trends established for Arctic air and biota have now achieved the statistical power needed to evaluate relationships with climate parameters.[5] However, only a few POP time series from the Arctic have been investigated for correlations with climate parameters to date. Some of these time series do show associations between changes in POP concentrations and climate parameters (e.g. climate oscillation indices, sea ice extent, precipitation) over time and provide important indications of covariates to consider in the interpretation of POP time trends, as further detailed in Hung et al.[31] and Vorkamp et al.[33]

Temporal trends of contaminants in the Arctic are used as indicators in effectiveness evaluations of the Stockholm Convention, which regulates primary emissions of POPs. In general, POP concentrations have been decreasing in the Arctic environment and biota.[5,34] However, some POP time series have shown recent perturbations in these decreasing trends that seem to be associated with climate-related changes in physical processes or ecosystems. The reduction of primary emissions is still considered to be the main driver of POP time trends, however, for some compounds, the rate of concentration decline changed (negatively or positively) when adjusted for climate-related parameters. Arctic indigenous peoples possess a rich repository of environmental knowledge and are directly affected by contaminants and climate change. Thus, their involvement and contributions are essential for assessing the effects of climate change on POPs and CEACs in the Arctic. Questions that would benefit from specialized Indigenous Knowledge and the co-production of knowledge include local and regional changes in environmental conditions (e.g. sea ice) and food webs that may affect POPs trends but would not be reflected in circumpolar scale climate indices or biodiversity assessments.

1. Emission estimates are limited to a few POPs such as PCBs, legacy chlorinated pesticides, and some CEACs, such as PAHs. These need to be updated as well as extended to ensure sufficient temporal and spatial resolution for modeling of transport to the Arctic and other polar environments.

2. Knowledge is lacking on the relative source attribution of POPs and selected CEACs in the Arctic to distant, regional and local sources.

3. Uncertainties in the physical–chemical properties of chemicals of interest, especially CEACs, impede estimations of emissions and modeling efforts.

4. Sensitivity analyses on model simulations need to be improved to evaluate the effects of climate-related changes in atmospheric composition and meteorological conditions on POP and CEAC concentrations in the Arctic.

5. The potential effects of regime shifts in climate conditions that result from transgressing “tipping points” in the climate system (e.g., such as complete loss of summer sea ice) on POP and CEAC concentrations, have yet to be considered.

6. There is a need for detailed studies of processes affecting the long-range transport of POPs and CEACs, including the joint analysis of modeling results and monitoring data (e.g. gas-particle partitioning, degradation, surface–air exchange, etc.).

7. There is a need to address local sources of POPs, CEACs and other, as of yet unstudied, current-use chemicals that could increase as a consequence of greater human activity in the Arctic related to climate change.

8. Knowledge of contaminant re-mobilization due to permafrost thaw and erosion is limited to a few studies and locations. Thus, the relevance of such processes to biotic exposures in freshwater systems is currently difficult to assess due to the limited geographic scope of existing data.

9. Natural halocarbons (nHCs) are likely to increase over this century due to the effects of climate change on producing species (i.e. phytoplankton and macroalgae) and biogeochemical cycles. The impacts of increased emissions of nHCs on stratospheric ozone are uncertain and need further investigation.

10. The role of microplastic particles present in snow and ice as climate forcers is currently unknown.

11. There is a lack of knowledge on the contaminant loadings from precipitation to polar marine surfaces (e.g. open water, ice melt ponds) and the relative input of these sources versus oceanic transport to the Arctic, Antarctica and the Tibetan plateau. Evaluations of model-based predictions of POP and CEAC deposition are lacking.

12. The rapid replacement of multi-year ice by brine-rich first-year ice in a warming Arctic necessitates studies investigating the exposure of sympagic organisms (e.g. ice algae and associated zooplankton in brine channels) to contaminants and the contaminant loadings from first-year ice to ocean waters.

13. While it is foreseeable that extreme weather events (e.g. severe rain events, floods, snowstorms and unseasonal warming in parts of the Arctic) will become more frequent due to climate change, studies examining the role of such events on the distribution pathways of POPs are currently lacking.

14. No data are currently available on the net effect of increased temperatures on the uptake and elimination rates of POPs in cold-blooded Arctic organisms.

15. Changes in POP levels of biota resulting from the direct effects of declining sea ice cover cannot be separated from the indirect effects of changes in food web structure and function with the present state of knowledge.

16. Increased terrestrial run-off from snow and glacier meltwater is expected to influence both the exposure levels and food web biomagnification of POPs in lakes and estuarine waters, but there are few empirical data available to confirm this.

17. There is a general lack of understanding regarding the impact of climate-driven changes in the phenology of ecological events (e.g. seasonal timing of migration, reproduction and food availability) on POP levels in Arctic biota.

18. The net effect of climate-related increases in freshwater and marine primary production on the bioavailability and bioaccumulation of POPs in Arctic biota is not well understood.

19. Climate-driven migrations of species from more southerly latitudes may introduce new sources of contaminants into Arctic food webs, however, the importance of these biovectors in transporting contaminants to the region is largely unknown.

20. Changes in seabird and marine mammal foraging patterns due to climate change have the potential to impact their exposure to POPs, but few data exist.

21. There is a general lack of understanding of how climate change and other environmental stressors affect the toxicity of POPs to Arctic biota.

22. Mechanistic process-oriented models combining physical–chemical transport models with bioenergetics and food web models can be used to project the overall bioaccumulation of POPs in Arctic biota, but there is insufficient understanding or empirical data to parametrize these models.

23. While associations between POP time trends and climate parameters (e.g. sea ice coverage, air temperatures, oscillation indices) have been identified, and included in trend modelling, the mechanisms underlying these correlations are not understood.

24. Climate oscillation indices, sea ice, temperature and precipitation have been the predominant climate parameters used to evaluate associations between climate change and contaminant temporal trends in the Arctic thus far, but it is not known if other parameters might be equally or more important.

25. The relationship of climate parameters and contaminant time trends in biota varies between species and locations. The reasons for these variations (e.g. influence of local or regional conditions) are not known.

26. Information on the effects of climate change on POP time trends in low trophic level organisms is generally lacking. In addition, there are no systematic studies of climate change effects on POP time trends in Arctic terrestrial ecosystems currently available.

27. Processes related to permafrost thaw, degradation and slumping have been associated with elevated POP levels in freshwater Arctic biota. The mechanisms underlying this connection are not fully understood, but increased particle loads and enhanced biological activity likely play a role.

28. Observations of stable or increasing HCB concentrations in Arctic biota are frequently reported, but lack explanation.

29. Although iceberg calving has been identified as a potential source of POP release and accumulation in marine biota in the Antarctic,[35] no studies have examined this phenomenon in the Arctic.

30. While the overall effects of climate change parameters on long-term contaminant time trends appear small at present, this may be a momentary observation. Updated information is needed as primary emissions will presumably continue to decrease, while the effects of climate change may become increasingly evident and can be expected to lead to complex feedback reactions.

Conclusion

1. Although climate change is impacting POP levels and trends in the Arctic, the reduction of primary emissions is currently considered the main driver of POP time trends. Thus, continued efforts to include more POP-like chemicals in chemical management initiatives at the global level (e.g. the Stockholm Convention), and at national or regional levels are needed.

2. Results from the reviews presented in this themed issue are relevant to other regional, national or international forums addressing contaminants and climate change, such as the recent Global Environmental Facility Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel initiative on the co-benefits of sound management of chemicals and waste.[43]

3. The relative contributions of long-range transport versus local emissions of POPs and CEACs to the Arctic may be changing due to climate change. There is a need to identify local sources and re-evaluate their contribution to Arctic pollution in order to inform chemical management decisions within and outside the region to reduce contaminant loads to the Arctic environment.

4. There are indications of climate change leading to increased human activity in the Arctic, and thus potentially increased use of chemicals within the region. Therefore, there may be a need for additional risk assessments that are not solely based on the criteria used for POPs or similar chemicals (e.g. persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity under EU REACH), but also include, for example, criteria related to chemical persistence and mobility, and emissions from consumer products.

5. Climate change can influence secondary emissions of POPs, as well as the physical, chemical and biological processes that affect their long-range transport and bioaccumulation, and thus, their long-term time trends in Arctic air and biota. These effects are outside the scope of the Stockholm Convention but need to be taken into account in relation to effectiveness evaluations.

6. Without further action on climate change, alterations in the Arctic ecosystem are expected to continue and may impact the effectiveness of policies seeking to reduce POP exposures in Arctic people and wildlife through primary source reductions alone. It is important for decision-makers to recognize the diversity and complexity of climate change-induced effects on POPs and that specific measures can have a variety of outcomes via physical, chemical and biological interactions and feedback reactions.

7. There is a need for funding agencies to support international and interdisciplinary approaches that would bring scientists working on climate impacts in the atmosphere, cryosphere and oceans into close collaboration with environmental scientists studying the effects of climate change on the fate of POPs and CEACs in the Arctic. Long-term studies are crucial in this context.

8. With the complexity of climate change impacts on contaminants in Arctic ecosystems, it is important to plan for integrated monitoring, which includes the collection of ancillary climate parameters, biological and ecological data in addition to contaminant data. This includes, but is not limited to, data on climate indicators and local meteorological conditions, as well as information on the physiology, biology and ecology of Arctic organisms. To be operative, integrated monitoring requires a stable institutional background and the agility to integrate short-term and local efforts and resources into a coherent service.

9. In some cases (e.g. reducing combustion sources) there are co-benefits from actions on climate change that can also help mitigate chemical exposure problems in the Arctic.

10. A precautionary approach to the management of persistent chemicals is prudent due to the poorly reversible consequences of global exposure and the range of hazards that are difficult to anticipate. These risks are compounded by deficiencies in our present understanding of how climate change might affect the global fate and transport of chemicals.

11.Community involvement in Arctic monitoring activities should be extended and expanded to include interdisciplinary issues at the interface of contaminants and climate change. This will require circumpolar countries to build and support research and monitoring programs, involving scientists and northern communities that encourage community-based studies and the co-production of knowledge, in close cooperation with existing programs.

12. Monitoring programs and individual research studies should comply with open data policies to ensure that quality-assured raw data on POPs and related ancillary data are publicly available for future study.

Considerable progress has been made in studies on the influence of climate change on the fate of POPs and some CEACs in polar/Arctic environments. The review articles in this themed issue provide evidence for climate-change induced re-mobilization and re-distribution of POPs and CEACs in the Arctic environment, and for ecological changes potentially influencing exposure to POPs at all levels of the food chain. Perturbations of some temporal trends have been observed, presumably as a consequence of these physical and/or ecological changes. However, most of the evidence is correlative and many open questions remain. A better mechanistic understanding of influences of climate change on long time series of POPs is important for effectiveness evaluations of international regulations of chemicals, but current evidence suggests already now that ancillary biological and climate parameters should be included as potential confounding factors in long-term trend modelling of POPs. The possibly growing influence of local sources of CEACs due to expansion of tourism and urban/industrial development in the polar regions is an emerging issue that needs further study, to meet local concerns and to ensure correct interpretation of monitoring data for potential policy actions. These and other questions would benefit from greater participation of indigenous communities and their knowledge of local and regional changes in environmental conditions. Given the speed and complexity of environmental changes in the Arctic, it is urgent to assess their influence on POPs and CEACs in the Arctic, including projections of potential future developments, and to regularly update the current knowledge base with new information. The coordinated research and monitoring approach under AMAP, and similar initiatives recently established for the Antarctic, will help provide new data to evaluate these emerging climate-contaminant issues. AMAP has experience with the monitoring and assessment of both contaminant and climate-related issues, based on close pan-Arctic and interdisciplinary scientific collaborations. This is an important basis for policy-advice that integrates findings from different scientific disciplines and that will target policies in the field of both chemicals management and climate protection.

REFERENCES

1. AMAP AMAP Assessment 2020: POPs and Chemicals of Emerging Arctic Concern: Influence of Climate Change , Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Tromsø, Norway, 2021, pp. viii + 142 Search PubMed .

2. AEPS Arctic Environment. Declaration on the Protection of the Arctic Environment , Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, Rovaniemi, Finland, 1991, Search PubMed .

3. AMAP AMAP Work Plan, Extract from Senior Arctic Officials Report to Ministers , Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Rovaniemi, Finland, 2019, p. 4 Search PubMed .

4. AMAP AMAP Assessment 2002: Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Arctic, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) , Oslo, Norway, 2004, pp. xvi + 310 Search PubMed .

5. AMAP AMAP Assessment 2015: Temporal Trends in Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Arctic , Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway, 2016, p. 71 Search PubMed .

6. AMAP AMAP Assessment 2016: Chemicals of Emerging Arctic Concern , Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway, 2017, pp. xvi + 353 Search PubMed .

7. UNEP Final Act of the Plenipotentiaries on the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants , United Nations Environment Programme Chemicals, 2001, p. 445 Search PubMed .

8. UNEP Report of the Conference of the Parties of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants on the Work of its Fourth Meeting , United Nations Environment Programme, Geneva, Switzerland, 2009, p. 112 Search PubMed .

9. UNEP/AMAP Climate Change and POPs: Predicting the Impacts , United Nations Environment Programme (Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention) and Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Geneva, Switzerland, 2011, p. 62 Search PubMed .

10. L. Lamon , H. Von Waldow , M. MacLeod , M. Scheringer , A. Marcomini and K. Hungerbühler , Modeling the global levels and distribution of polychlorinated biphenyls in air under a climate change scenario, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2009, 43 , 5818 —5824 CrossRef CAS PubMed .

11. AMAP AMAP Assessment 2002: the Influence of Global Change on Contaminant Pathways to, within, and from the Arctic , Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway, 2003, pp. xii + 65 Search PubMed .

12. K. Borgå , T. M. Saloranta and A. Ruus , Simulating climate change-induced alterations in bioaccumulation of organic contaminants in an arctic marine food web, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 2010, 29 , 1349 —1357 CrossRef PubMed .

13. J. Carrie , F. Wang , H. Sanei , R. W. Macdonald , P. M. Outridge and G. A. Stern , Increasing contaminant burdens in an Arctic fish, burbot (Lota lota), in a warming climate, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2010, 44 , 316 —322 CrossRef CAS PubMed .

14. J. M. Pacyna , I. T. Cousins , C. Halsall , A. Rautio , J. Pawlak , E. G. Pacyna , K. Sundseth , S. Wilson and J. Munthe , Impacts on human health in the Arctic owing to climate-induced changes in contaminant cycling – The EU ArcRisk project policy outcome, Environ. Sci. Policy, 2015, 50 , 200 —213 CrossRef CAS .

15. ArcRisk Final Report Summary. ARCRISK (Arctic Health Risks: Impacts on Health in the Arctic and Europe Owing to Climate-Induced Changes in Contaminant Cycling) , European Commission, FP7-Environment, 2014, p. 14 Search PubMed .

16. P. Carlsson , J. H. Christensen , K. Borgå , R. Kallenborn , K. Aspmo Pfaffhuber , Ø. Odland , L.-O. Reiersen and J. F. Pawlak , Influence of Climate Change on Transport, Levels, and Effects of Contaminants in Northern Areas – Part 2 , Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, 2016, p. 52 Search PubMed .

17. P. Carlsson , K. Breivik , E. Brorström-Lundén , I. Cousins , J. Christensen , J. O. Grimalt , C. Halsall , R. Kallenborn , K. Abass , G. Lammel , J. Munthe , M. MacLeod , J. Ø. Odland , J. Pawlak , A. Rautio , L.-O. Reiersen , M. Schlabach , I. Stemmler , S. Wilson and H. Wöhrnschimmel , Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as sentinels for the elucidation of Arctic environmental change processes: a comprehensive review combined with ArcRisk project results, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 2018, 25 , 22499 —22528 CrossRef CAS PubMed .

18. H. Wöhrnschimmel , M. MacLeod and K. Hungerbuhler , Emissions, Fate and Transport of Persistent Organic Pollutants to the Arctic in a Changing Global Climate, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 , 2323 —2330 CrossRef PubMed .

19. ACIA Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, ACIA Overview Report , Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2005, p. 1042 Search PubMed .

20. IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , United Nations Environment Programme and World Meterological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2014, p. 151 Search PubMed .

21. IPCC Summary for Policymakers, in Climate Change 2021: the Physical Science Basis, in Press. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, United Nations Environment Programme and World Meterological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2021, p. 42 Search PubMed .

22. AMAP Climate Change Update 2019: an Update to Key Findings of Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA) 2017 , Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway, 2019, p. 12 Search PubMed .

23. AMAP Arctic Climate Change Update 2021: Key Trends and Impacts. Summary for Policy-Makers , Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Tromsø, Norway, 2021, p. 16 Search PubMed .

24. M. A. McKinney , S. Pedro , R. Dietz , C. Sonne , A. T. Fisk , D. Roy , B. M. Jenssen and R. J. Letcher , A review of ecological impacts of global climate change on persistent organic pollutant and mercury pathways and exposures in arctic marine ecosystems, Curr. Zool., 2015, 61 , 617 —628 CrossRef .

25. J. Ma , H. Hung and R. W. Macdonald , The influence of global climate change on the environmental fate of persistent organic pollutants: A review with emphasis on the Northern Hemisphere and the Arctic as a receptor, Glob. Planet. Change, 2016, 146 , 89 —108 CrossRef .

26. J. Overland , E. Dunlea , J. E. Box , R. Corell , M. Forsius , V. Kattsov , M. S. Olsen , J. Pawlak , L.-O. Reiersen and M. Wang , The urgency of Arctic change, Polar Sci., 2019, 21 , 6 —13 CrossRef .

27. AMAP Human Health in the Arctic 2021, Summary for Policy-Makers , Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Tromsø, Norway, 2021, p. 16 Search PubMed .

28. AMAP AMAP Assessment 2015: Human Health in the Arctic , Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway, 2015, p. 165 Search PubMed .

29.  AMAP AMAP Mercury Assessment 2020 , 2021, Search PubMed .

30. P. Bartlett , M. MacLeod , I. Cousins , C. Friedman , K. Mantzius Hansen , A. Gusev , G. Lammel , L. Li , Y. Lu , J. Ma and M. Muntean , Modeling emissions and long-range transport of POPs and CEACs under climate change, Environ. Sci.: Processes Impact, 2022, Search PubMed . , this issue in press

31. H. Hung , C. Halsall , H. Ball , T. Bidleman , J. Dachs , A. De Silva , M. Hermanson , R. Kallenborn , D. C. G. Muir , R. Sühring and X. Wang , Climate Change Influence on the Levels and Trends of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and Chemicals of Emerging Arctic Concern (CEACs) in the Arctic Physical Environment – A Review, Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts, 2022, Search PubMed . , this issue in press

32.  K. Borgå , M. McKinney , H. Routti , K. Femie , J. Giebichenstein , D. C. G. Muir and I. Hallanger , How does global climate change influence accumulation of persistent organic pollutants in Arctic food webs?, Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts, 2022, Search PubMed . , this issue in press

33. K. Vorkamp , P. Carlsson , S. Corsolini , C. A. de Wit , R. Dietz , M. O. Gribble , M. Houde , V. Kalia , R. J. Letcher , A. Morris , F. F. Rigét , H. Routti and D. C. G. Muir , Influences of climate change on long-term time series of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in Arctic and Antarctic biota, Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts, 2022, Search PubMed . , this issue in press

34. F. Rigét , A. Bignert , B. Braune , M. Dam , R. Dietz , M. Evans , N. Green , H. Gunnlaugsdóttir , K. S. Hoydal , J. Kucklick , R. Letcher , D. Muir , S. Schuur , C. Sonne , G. Stern , G. Tomy , K. Vorkamp and S. Wilson , Temporal trends of persistent organic pollutants in Arctic marine and freshwater biota, Sci. Total Environ., 2019, 649 , 99 —110 CrossRef PubMed .

35. S. Corsolini and N. Ademollo , Links between POP Time Trends and Climate Change in the Antarctic Ecosystems, Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts, 2022, Search PubMed . , this issue in press

36. X. Wang Climate Change and POPs Cycling in the Tibetan Plateau, Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts, 2022, Search PubMed . , this issue in press

37. UNECE Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Pollutants , United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Aarhus, DM, 1998, Search PubMed .

38. J. E. Balmer , H. Hung , Y. Yu , R. J. Letcher and D. C. G. Muir , Sources and environmental fate of pyrogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the Arctic, Emerging Contam., 2019, 5 , 128 —142 CrossRef .

39. AMAP AMAP Litter and Microplastics Monitoring Plan , Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Tromsø, Norway, 2021, p. 23 Search PubMed .

40. NOAA, Teleconnections, accessed 19 June 2019.

41. AMAP Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA): Climate Change and the Cryosphere , Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway, 2011, pp. xii + 538 Search PubMed .

42. AACA, Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic, accessed May 2020, https://aaca.amap.no/.

43. GEF Delivering Multiple Benefits through the Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste , Global Environmental Facility (GEF), 2020, Search PubMed .