CPSC NEISS · code 955

Automotive Chemicals

Automotive Chemicals: danger rank #370 of 838 is not ER-volume rank #464 of 838 (1,580 estimated ER visits a year; declining by about 12% over the last five years).

Home Workshop Tools & Equipment CPSC NEISS through 2024

Danger score versus ER volume

Danger score versus ER volume

According to CPSC NEISS 2005-2024, Automotive Chemicals ranks #370 of 838 by danger score (36/100) at ER-volume #464 of 838 (1,580/yr). They are not the same ranking.

#370
danger rank of 838
#464
ER-volume rank of 838
36/100
danger score
1,580/yr
estimated ER visits (avg)

Danger score combines injury volume, hospitalization, fatality, and five-year trend. ER volume is the average annual NEISS estimate alone. Rank 1 is highest on each list.

Where this category's danger score sits nationally

Danger score (36/100) across 838 scored CPSC product categories

36 Around the middle lower than 44% of 838 product categories

scored CPSC product categories, bucketed by value

Each bar is a band; taller bars hold more product categories. The dashed line + filled bar mark this entry. Hover or tap any bar for its full count and share, and where it sits relative to this entry.

Source CPSC NEISS, PlainSafety danger-score model · 2024

Composite verdict

Composite Safety Score: 55/100

One verdict blending 4 independently-sourced dimensions from two separate CPSC systems, each benchmarked against all 838 scored product categories by percentile rather than raw value, so no single huge-volume category can dominate the scale.

C
Dimension Value National percentile Weight applied Source
Injury severity (hospitalization + fatality blend) 9 73rd 35% CPSC NEISS 20-year severity index
Annual ER injury volume 1,580 42nd 30% CPSC NEISS estimated annual ER-treated injuries
5-year injury trend -12% 48th 15% CPSC NEISS 5-year % change in ER-treated injuries
Consumer incident reports 10 49th 20% CPSC SaferProducts.gov public incident report count

Methodology: each dimension is ranked against the full population's p10/p25/p50/p75/p90 breakpoints and interpolated to a 0-100 percentile; the composite is the weighted average of available percentiles. See methodology for the full benchmark table.

Where 31,595 estimated ER injuries land on the body

Body-part shares from the same CPSC NEISS injury_types extract for product code 955. Segments sum to 31,595 - a body-map mix, not a danger score or ER-volume rank.

Two danger lenses

Same-group peer scores and this product's dial

The bars compare PlainSafety danger scores inside the Home Workshop Tools & Equipment group (same CPSC NEISS extract). The dial is this product's score alone on the Low/Moderate/High bands. Do not read a peer bar as an ER-visit count.

Home Workshop Tools & Equipment danger scores

1. Gasoline47/1002. Methyl Alcohol (solvent)45/1003. Caustics43/1004. Lye42/1005. Gasoline Cans41/1006. Paints, Varnishes Or Shel…41/1007. General Purpose Household…41/1008. Automotive Chemicals36/100
Higher score = higher composite danger in this group. Peer set is other scored products sharing the same CPSC group.
0/100100/10036/100
PlainSafety danger score · Automotive Chemicals

Source: CPSC NEISS danger-score model As of 2024

How this 36/100 score is built

The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for automotive chemicals - no opinion, no editorializing:

  • Injury volume 1,580 ER visits/yr Below median volume
  • Severity (hospitalization rate) 6.7% Above median admission rate
  • Fatality rate 0.24% Elevated fatality rate
  • 5-year trend-12%

Band labels compare this category against the corpus of 838 scored CPSC product categories, see the full methodology for the exact weighting of each factor.

What the CPSC Data Shows

Across the 20-year NEISS window from 2005 to 2024, injury counts for automotive chemicals are declining by about 12% over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2024 (1,977 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2021 (996 estimated visits). The single most common ER diagnosis is poisoning to the all parts body, accounting for approximately 8,652 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by derma/conjunct to the eyeball (3,996 cases). The 25-34 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 6,285 cases over the NEISS window, and males appear slightly more often than the opposite sex in that cohort. Severity outcomes from the NEISS disposition field show that 6.7% of ER visits involving this product end in hospital admission or transfer, and a small fraction (0.24%) result in fatality.

Beyond the hospital-sampled NEISS projections, this page also aggregates 10 consumer incident reports filed directly on SaferProducts.gov, plus 20 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how automotive chemicals fail in real households. Every figure on this page comes from CPSC-published data: NEISS projects national estimates from a probability sample of about 100 U.S. hospital emergency departments, while SaferProducts.gov collects voluntary reports from consumers, manufacturers, and clinicians. The danger score, trend indicators, and demographic breakdowns update automatically when CPSC releases a new yearly NEISS file, which is why this page is dated 2024-12-31. For regulatory context, consult CPSC recall notices and the SaferProducts.gov public database linked below.

Annual Injury Estimates (2005–2024)

5001K2K2K3K 20052008201120142017202020232024 2K
Estimated annual emergency-room visits for Automotive Chemicals, CPSC NEISS

Source: CPSC NEISS national injury estimates As of 2024

Source: CPSC NEISS national estimates Injuries represent ER-treated cases only

Who Gets Injured?

Age Group Male Female Total
0-4 3,024 1,771 4,795
5-14 924 399 1,323
15-24 4,714 615 5,329
25-34 5,504 781 6,285
35-44 4,905 1,135 6,040
45-54 3,220 767 3,987
55-64 2,011 64 2,075
65-74 844 172 1,016
75+ 469 279 748

Most Common Injuries

Body Part Diagnosis Est. Injuries
All Parts Body Poisoning 8,652
Eyeball Derma/conjunct 3,996
Eyeball Burn, Chemical 3,244
Eyeball Other 2,283
Eyeball Contusions, Abr. 1,439
Face Burns, Thermal 755
Eyeball Foreign Body 753
Face Burn, Scald 644
Hand Burn, Chemical 638
Lower Arm Burn, Chemical 539
Face Other 471
Face Burn, Chemical 442
Lower Arm Burn, Scald 405
Hand Derma/conjunct 343
Foot Burn, Chemical 342

Severity Breakdown

Treated/examined And Released 90.5% (28,582)
Treated And Admitted/hospitalized 4.8% (1,523)
Treated And Transferred 1.7% (528)
Held For Observation 1.6% (491)
Left Without Being Seen 1.2% (394)
Fatality Incl. Doa, Died In Er 0.2% (77)

ER Visit Narratives

Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.

Age 36 · Male · Eyeball · Derma/conjunct · 2024

36YOM REPORTS FILLING HIS CAR TRANSMISSION WITH *** AT HOME WHEN IT ACCIDENTALLY SPLASHED ON HIS FACE AND IN BOTH EYES AT 11:00 AM ; HE REPORTS INITIALLY FLUSHING BOTH EYES AT HIS KITCHEN SINK FAUCET 20 SECONDS EACH FOR 5 FLUSHINGS EACH; HE PRESENTS TO THE ER DUE TO KIND OF LIKE A FILM OVER MY EYES - BLURRINESS; DX: CONJUNCTIVITIS

Age 64 · Male · Hand · Burn, Not Spec. · 2024

64YOM PT STATES A RADIATOR HOSE BLEW UP ON HIM WHILE HE WAS HOLDING IT C/O BURN TO LEFT HAND INGESTED ANTIFREEZE C/O DIZZINESS DX: SECOND DEGREE BURN OF LEFT HAND

Age 27 · Female · Face · Derma/conjunct · 2024

27YOF INVOLVED IN A MVA ABOUT A MONTH AGO, AIR BAGS DEPLOYED, NOW SHE HAS A RASH ON HER FACE FROM CHEMICALS IMBEDDED IN THE SKIN OF HER FACE.DX: CHEMICAL IRRITATIVE CONTACT DERMATITIS.

Age 28 · Male · Hand · Burn, Scald · 2024

28 YOM C/O HAND BURN S/P HOT ANTIFREEZE SPLASHED ON HAND WHILE TRYING TO FIX A CAR. DX: HAND BURN

Age 43 · Male · Eyeball · Other · 2024

43YOM PRESENTS WITH EYE PAIN. HE GOT SOME BRAKE CLEANER IN BOTH HIS EYES AND WAS SENT HERE BY POISON CONTROL. DX: EYE IRRITATION

Age 16 · Male · Eyeball · Other · 2024

16 YOM C/O EYE PAIN S/P ACCIDENTALLY SQUEEZED ANTIFREEZE IN EYE DURING CLASS AT SCHOOL. DX: EYE PAIN

Age 19 · Female · Hand · Derma/conjunct · 2024

19YOF WAS CLEANING HER DAD CAR AND GOT SOME *** ON HER HANDS AND STARTED TO BURN DX:ALLERGIC DERMATITIS TO CHEMCIAL

Age 67 · Male · All Parts Body · Poisoning · 2024

67YOM PRESENTS TO THE ED AFTER THE PATIENT WAS WORKING OUTSIDE ON HIS CAR TRYING TO FIX THE AC, *** 134 WHICH EXPLODED IN PATIENT'S FACE COMPLAINING CHEMICAL POISONING. DX: ACCIDENTAL POISONING, CHEMICAL EXPOSURE

Age 28 · Male · All Parts Body · Poisoning · 2024

28 YOM ACCIDENTALLY GOT DYNAMITE ENGINE DEGREASER AND CLEANER SPLASHED INTO HIS MOUTH WHILE POURING THE NON-DILUTED INGREDIENTS FROM ONE BUCKET TO ANOTHER. DX: INGESTION OF CORROSIVE CHEMICAL ACCIDENTAL, SORE THROAT

Age 35 · Male · Lower Arm · Burn, Chemical · 2024

^35YOM TO ER FOR PARTIAL THICKNESS BURNS TO BILATERAL LOWER ARMS, PT WAS CHANGING BRAKES ON VEHICLE & ARMS WERE LAYING IN BRAKE FLUID, NOTICED ARMS WERE RED YESTERDAY, TODAY ARE BURNING RED DX CHEMICAL BURNS TO BOTH FOREARMS

Age 22 · Male · All Parts Body · Poisoning · 2024

22YOM PRESENTS WITH NASAL IRRITATION AND SHORTNESS OF BREATH AFTER INHALING SOME AUTOMOTIVE CYCLINDER LUBRICANT THAT SPLASHED UP INTO HIS FACE; PATIENT WEARING GLASSES DX: CHEMICAL EXPOSURE

Age 31 · Male · All Parts Body · Poisoning · 2024

31 YOM HAD CLEANED OUT UNDERNEATH THE SINK AND PUT THINGS ON TOP OF THE COUNTER. HE LATER GOT UP FROM SLEEP, THE LIGHTS WERE OFF, HE THOUGHT THERE WAS A *** BOTTLE ON THE COUNTER AND TOOK A SIP. HE IMMEDIATELY KNEW IT WAS NOT SOMETHING TO DRINK AND SPIT IT OUT, BELIEVES HE INGESTED HEAD GASKET SEALER. DX: INGESTION OF SUBSTANCE. PT ELOPED

Consumer Incident Reports

Reports filed by consumers on SaferProducts.gov.

9/24/2011 · Incident, No Injury · ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC. · Texas

I recently purchased the plastic tank repair kit to repair a windshield wash reservoir. I read instructions, sanded container, mixed pouch for 15 seconds, and cut end to apply resins. Within 5 seconds of cutting the end of the pouch, the resin started hardening and became so hot that I could not hold the pouch. Here I am with a hard pouch of resin and no chance to repair the tank. Your instructions are very clear, but you need to modify your formula since it is totally unusable. Would you like for me to send you the package? It was purchased at Atwood Farm and Ranch Supply in Tyler, Texas and the number on the kit package is 0908181 for your reference. I would like a replacement kit that will work. Part No. SR-214/90214 Thank you, [redacted]

9/12/2013 · Incident, No Injury · Idea Village · New York

The consumer stated that his son took a brand new sponge and applied the product to the bumpers on the outside of his car. After half an hour of use, the consumer's son put the used sponge in a dry empty bucket near kitchen sink. About an hour later they smelled smoke. The consumer stated that their cabinet door, next to the bucket, in the kitchen was on fire. There was spontaneous combustion with the product and the sponge. The consumer stated that the plastic bucket melted and left shards of the cabinet door. The consumer sent numerous emails to the online retailer where he purchased the product from, but they have not responded to any of his emails The consumer stated that the product is meant to be used on the inside and outside of the car. The consumer believes that the potential dangers of the product should be listed on the labeling. There are no recalls on this product.

6/5/2025 · Incident, No Injury · Schultz Laboratories Mfr., Inc. · Colorado

at ORiellys auto parts, i picked up a metal polish, to shine up some parts on a motorcycle, White Diamond metal polish, heres the issue, worked fine, but, they added a vanilla scent to it, and its poison, and marked maybe harmful or fatal if swallowed, after use, i closed the bottle., put it up, started to clean the rest of the mess, to find my 8 year old dog, [REDACTED], took the applicator pad i used to wipe the product on, and ate half of it, smelling like a vanilla treat, , the last 2 days, iv had to deal with a very sick dog, vet bill, and such, my thought was why would anyone sent of flavor such a product, what if someones small child got hold of this, and drank it, thinking it was something sweet,. iv reached out to the Auto parts store, and Shultz Laboratories, with rude responses. basically blaming me for leaving a pad were my dog could get it, if it wasnt scented, she never would have even touched it.

6/10/2022 · Injury, No First Aid or Medical Attention Received · Walmart Stores Inc. · Ohio

Used "Miracle Cleaning Eraser" [manufactured by BASF, sold by WalMart] with brake parts cleaner [manufacturer unknown, sold by Advance Auto Parts] to scrub away material that had accumulated on brake caliper slide pin. Noticed "interesting" odor; felt no pain. Within one hour, when pumping gasoline, realized that my sense of smell had been compromised: experienced that "interesting" smell instead of smelling the gasoline. Since then, I have not smelled that interesting smell. Instead, I have a very limited and inconsistent ability to smell ordinary odors, plus many ordinary odors trigger a nasty smell that corresponds to no real thing. The can of brake parts cleaner says it contains tetrachloroethylene. The box of cleaning easers does not say that the product contains formaldehyde, which will release HCl (hydrochloric acid) when mixed with tetrachloroethylene. There is a warning not to use with chlorine bleach, but that warning is not in the section with the cautions concerning bodily harm. There is a very good chance that my sense of smell is permanently damaged—not just lost but perverted, because common odors such as flowers induce that nasty smell.

5/4/2023 · Injury, Seen by Medical Professional · ITW (Illinois Tool Works) Fastex · California

4/14/2003: The consumer used a sponge to clean the wheels of his car for approximately 10 – 15 minutes. Some of the cleaner flew off the sponge, which he had in his hand, and into his left eye. He immediately went into the house and flushed his eye. NOTE: The consumer can only see out of his left eye. His wife is a nurse and prescribe some medical grade eye treatment. 4/17/2023: The consumer went to an ophthalmologist for his eye injury. The doctor told him that he had an abrasion on his eye from that product and prescribed medication to use for his symptoms. The consumer’s hands were also impacted by this incident, even though he was wearing rubber gloves. He is unsure of any possible long term health effects.

5/1/2019 · Injury, Hospital Admission · Ningbo Aimo E-Commerce Co., Ltd · Colorado

Child ingested a product called HGKJ 8 Lamp Renovation Agent being sold online through Facebook and Amazon. This product has no ingredients listed on product label, nor on Facebook. Product/Manufacturer does not have a valid website listing ingredients or with a Safety Data Sheet. This child had to be admitted to the hospital for lab tests and observation because this product carries an unknown safety risk to the public due to not having an ingredient list, safety statement or Safety Data Sheet. According to the [REDACTED] page, the manufacturer makes other products with no ingredients listed, safety statement or Safety Data Sheet.

4/18/2016 · Incident, No Injury · Sears Holdings Management Corporation · Kentucky

(04/17/2016) The consumer stated that her daughter heard an explosion in the truck of the SUV. Her daughter's husband checked the trunk of the SUV and saw that the aerosol can had exploded. The can blew a hole in the floor bed of the SUV. No one was in the vehicle at the time. The consumer will contact the firm.

4/16/2024 · No Incident, No Injury · Paint Pros LLC · Ohio

Im a consulting chemist and a client sent me sample of Shiny Car Stuff for evaluation. I requested the Safety Data Sheet for the material. The label had no product warnings. On opening the sample, and later the SDS confirmed, the deduct is FLAMMABLE. There is no flammability warning on the label. There are no hazard warnings on the label reflecting the hazards on the products SDS. The SDS states the product is toxic and can be fatal even from first exposure. There are NO such warnings on the label. They do not provide retail consumers and product safety information, only to commercial clients. Even then they do not provide an SDS unless demanded. An OSHA complaint is pending.

Showing 8 of 10 reports.

Product Recalls

Search for active and past recalls related to automotive chemicals on the CPSC website.

Compare beyond Home Workshop Tools & Equipment

Nationwide peers by danger score, ER volume & hospitalization

Three PlainSafety-derived comparison paths for Automotive Chemicals: cross-group products nearest on danger score (36/100), estimated annual ER visits (1,580/yr), and hospitalization share (6.7%). Same-group neighbours stay in Related Products above.

Read with this product

About this data

CPSC National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) 2005–2024 and SaferProducts.gov consumer incident reports form the basis of this page. Injury estimates are based on a nationally representative probability sample of U.S. hospital emergency departments.

According to PlainSafety's CPSC NEISS corpus ranking, Automotive Chemicals ranks #370 of 838 scored CPSC product categories by PlainSafety danger score and #464 of 838 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume.

Frequently Asked Questions

Where does automotive chemicals rank on danger score versus ER volume?

Among 838 scored CPSC product categories, automotive chemicals ranks #370 by PlainSafety danger score (36/100) and #464 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume (1,580/yr). The two rankings come from the same NEISS extract and are not the same order.

What are the most common injuries from automotive chemicals?

The most common injury is poisoning to the all parts body, accounting for approximately 8,652 injuries over 20 years.

Are injuries from automotive chemicals increasing or decreasing?

Down 12% over 5 years.

Who is most at risk for automotive chemicals injuries?

The 25-34 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 6,285 cases recorded over 20 years. Males are more frequently injured in this age group.

What happens when someone is injured by automotive chemicals?

Of all ER visits involving automotive chemicals, approximately 6.7% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (93.3%) are treated and released from the emergency department.

How can I report a safety problem with automotive chemicals?

You can file a consumer incident report at SaferProducts.gov, the official CPSC reporting portal. Reports help the CPSC identify emerging hazards and trigger investigations or recalls. You can also call the CPSC hotline at 1-800-638-2772.

Data on Automotive Chemicals is compiled directly from CPSC NEISS and SaferProducts.gov records, current through 2024. See our methodology for details.

Disclaimer: This page is for informational purposes only and is not affiliated with the CPSC.

PlainSafety is rendered directly from U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recall and incident records, no number is typed in by an editor. Product recall timelines and hazard labels are drawn from CPSC recall records for this product. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these numbers, or report a data error. Data current as of August 2026.