  We critically examine recent claims of a high solar metallicity by von
Steiger \& Zurbuchen (2016) based on \textit{in situ} measurements of the solar
wind, rather than the standard spectroscopically-inferred abundances (Asplund
et al. 2009). We test the claim by Vagnozzi et al. (2016) that a composition
based on the solar wind enables one to construct a standard solar model in
agreement with helioseismological observations and thus solve the decades-old
solar modelling problem. We show that, although some helioseismological
observables are improved compared to models computed with spectroscopic
abundances, most are in fact worse. The high abundance of refractory elements
leads to an overproduction of neutrinos, with a predicted $^8$B flux that is
nearly twice its observed value, and $^7$Be and CNO fluxes that are
experimentally ruled out at high confidence. A combined likelihood analysis
shows that models using the vSZ16 abundances fare worse than AGSS09 despite a
higher metallicity. We also present astrophysical and spectroscopic arguments
showing the vSZ16 composition to be an implausible representation of the solar
interior, identifying the first ionisation potential effect in the outer solar
atmosphere and wind as the likely culprit.
