Thank you to author Ronald Kostoff for this link.

An Editorial in the journal Toxicology Reports entitled "The role of toxic stimuli combinations in determining safe exposure limits" has been published recently.  The article asserts that lack of adequate testing of toxic stimuli for safety purposes in combinations reflective of real-world exposures results in regulatory Exposure Limits not fully protective.  While the Editorial applies to all toxic stimuli exposures, RFR is mentioned specifically at the end of Section 2.  The Editorial is Open Access, and can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxrep.2018.10.010

The role of toxic stimuli combinations in determining safe exposure limits

1. Introduction

Since the dawn of the Industrial Age, and especially over the past century, many thousands of technologies and their products have been introduced to our society. There has been continual concern about the safety of these products, as reflected in their potential adverse impacts on human health. As a result, a number of regulatory agencies have been established for the purpose of ensuring these technology products are safe.

There are three main obstacles these agencies face in determining the degree to which Exposure Limits are protective:

Sufficiency of existing data for setting safe exposure limits (Has adequate research been done and reported on the toxic stimulus in question and does the research that has been conducted and reported reflect real-world exposures?)

Sufficiency of incorporating relevant existing data from the biomedical literature

Trustworthiness of existing data in the biomedical literature [1].

This editorial focuses on the issue of how well real-world exposure effects are reflected by the published literature. The other issues are addressed in part in a recent monograph on occupational exposure permissible limits [2].  Read the full editorial here.