Danger score versus ER volume
Danger score versus ER volume
According to CPSC NEISS 2005-2024, Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified ranks #173 of 838 by danger score (40/100) at ER-volume #233 of 838 (8,041/yr). They are not the same ranking.
- #173
- danger rank of 838
- #233
- ER-volume rank of 838
- 40/100
- danger score
- 8,041/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 (40/100) across 838 scored CPSC product categories
40 Higher than most more dangerous than 75% 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: 60/100
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.
| Dimension | Value | National percentile | Weight applied | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Injury severity (hospitalization + fatality blend) | 5 | 41st | 35% | CPSC NEISS 20-year severity index |
| Annual ER injury volume | 8,041 | 67th | 30% | CPSC NEISS estimated annual ER-treated injuries |
| 5-year injury trend | +31% | 87th | 15% | CPSC NEISS 5-year % change in ER-treated injuries |
| Consumer incident reports | 28 | 61st | 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 160,807 estimated ER injuries land on the body
Body-part shares from the same CPSC NEISS injury_types extract for product code 921. Segments sum to 160,807 - 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
How this 40/100 score is built
The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for chemicals, not elsewhere classified - no opinion, no editorializing:
- Injury volume 8,041 ER visits/yr Above median volume
- Severity (hospitalization rate) 4.7% Below median admission rate
- Fatality rate 0.02% Low fatality rate
- 5-year trend+31%
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 chemicals, not elsewhere classified are rising by about 31% over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2024 (14,205 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2016 (6,128 estimated visits). The single most common ER diagnosis is poisoning to the all parts body, accounting for approximately 69,318 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by derma/conjunct to the eyeball (11,858 cases). The 0-4 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 30,729 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 4.7% of ER visits involving this product end in hospital admission or transfer, and a small fraction (0.02%) result in fatality.
Beyond the hospital-sampled NEISS projections, this page also aggregates 28 consumer incident reports filed directly on SaferProducts.gov, plus 20 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how chemicals, not elsewhere classified 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)
Source: CPSC NEISS national estimates Injuries represent ER-treated cases only
Who Gets Injured?
| Age Group | Male | Female | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0-4 | 15,643 | 15,086 | |
| 5-14 | 7,243 | 5,787 | |
| 15-24 | 11,402 | 11,049 | |
| 25-34 | 13,246 | 9,869 | |
| 35-44 | 12,281 | 9,422 | |
| 45-54 | 10,897 | 9,574 | |
| 55-64 | 7,689 | 6,936 | |
| 65-74 | 5,856 | 4,042 | |
| 75+ | 2,653 | 2,058 |
Most Common Injuries
| Body Part | Diagnosis | Est. Injuries |
|---|---|---|
| All Parts Body | Poisoning | |
| Eyeball | Derma/conjunct | |
| Eyeball | Burn, Chemical | |
| Eyeball | Other | |
| Hand | Burn, Chemical | |
| Face | Burn, Chemical | |
| Hand | Derma/conjunct | |
| Eyeball | Contusions, Abr. | |
| All Parts Body | Other | |
| Face | Derma/conjunct | |
| All Parts Body | Anoxia | |
| Lower Arm | Derma/conjunct | |
| Finger | Burn, Chemical | |
| Lower Arm | Burn, Chemical | |
| Face | Other |
Severity Breakdown
ER Visit Narratives
Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.
60YOF PRESENTS TO ED WITH EYE PAIN. PT WAS HELPING FIREND CHANGE UP FLUID IN CAR WHEN FLUID WENT INTO ELFT WORSE THAN RT EYE. PT ENDORSED GRITTY SENSATION WASHED OUT HER EYE FOR 2 DAYS BUT STILL ENDORSES SOME PAIN ON RT SIDE. DX: EXPOSURE TO CHEMICAL IRRITANT.
21 MOM FOUND CHEWING ON A SILICA GEL PACKET THAT WAS IN BEEF JERKY. DX INGESTION
62YOF WITH IRRITATION TO HER FEET WTIH SOME EDEMA FROM CHEMICAL, N/SDX: CONTACT DERMATITIS FROM CHEMICAL.
18YOF COMPLAINS OF CHEST PAIN AND SHORTNESS OF BREATH. STATES SYMPTOMS BEGAN AFTER SOME CONSTRUCTION WORKERS SPRAYED SOME TYPE OF CHEMICAL. DX: CHEST PAIN, REACTIVE AIRWAY DISEASE
41 YOM WAS ATTEMPTING TO PLACE HIS CAR TIRE ON A WHEEL WITH A CHEMICAL DURING WHICH THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION AND CAR CAUGHT FIRE. PATIENT WAS FOUND APPROXIMATELY 20 FEET AWAY. FD NS. DX: FULL THICKNESS BURN LEFT UPPER ARM, FULL THICKNESS BURN CHEST, FULL THICKNESS BURN FACE.
35YOF C/O CHEMICAL BURN IN HER GROIN AFTER USING *** 2 DAYS AGO. EXPERIENCING PAIN DUE TO THE BURNS THAT WORSENS WITH TOUCH. DX: CHEMICAL BURN, INGUINAL PAIN
72 YOM WAS FOUND IN AN APARTMENT FIRE. EXTRICATION TOOK APPROXIMATELY 30 MIN. FD NS. DX: CARDIAC ARREST, TOXIC EFFECT OF CYANIDE.
86 YOM ANTICOAGULATED ON *** AND *** WAS DE-ICING HIS DRIVEWAY WHEN HIS LEGS GOT WEAK AND HE FELL FORWARD STRIKING HIS HEAD. DX: CLOSED HEAD INJURY, FOREHEAD LACERATION, CONTUSION RIGHT CHEST WALL
46YOF PRESENTS WITH A FALL S/P PT SLIPPED AND FELL IN HER DRIVEWAY AT HOME WHILE TRYING TO SALT IT. SHE REPORTS LANDING ON HER RIGHT UPPER ARM. PT LEFT ED PRIOR TO BEING SEEN BY THE ER PHYSICIAN BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T WANT TO WAIT FOR A ROOM. DX: FALL
27YOM PRESENTS TO THE ED AFTER THE PATIENT SPLASHED RADIATOR COOLANT IN HIS FACE AND SKIN COMPLAINING OF ABDOMINAL PAIN, MOUTH FEELS DIFFERENT. PATIENT CONTACTED PCC AND TOLD PATIENT TO COME IN. DX: EXPOSURE TO TOXIN, ABDOMINAL PAIN
70 YOM WAS BEING TRANSPORTED FROM HOSPITAL TO NURSING FACILITY ON A STRETCHER WHEN THE STRETCHER HIT SOME SALT ON THE GROUND AND OVERTURNED WITH HIM ON IT. DX: FALL FROM STRETCHER, SHOULDER PAIN, RIGHT WRIST AND THUMB PAIN
49 YOM FROM THE *** STATES HIS ROOMMATES HAVE BEEN SPRAYING A CHEMICAL ON HIS FEET THAT IS GIVING HIM CHEST PAIN DX CHEST PAIN
Consumer Incident Reports
Reports filed by consumers on SaferProducts.gov.
A 39-year-old woman was driving her car through an intersection when she was struck and killed by a 23-year-old man who had inhaled Dust-Off. The man survived, along with his 5- year-old daughter and another passenger who were in the vehicle with him. A news article about this crash can be found here: [REDACTED] The 39-year-old's father filed a lawsuit against Falcon Safety Products, Inc. and Walmart on November 13, 2020. The case was scheduled to go to trial on November 13, 2023 but the case settled on October 31, 2023.
The consumer indicates that she sprayed her insecticide and did so at such angle where it accidentally got on two of her fingers. Approximately an hour later, the same two fingers went numb for between five to ten minutes. Shortly after her face and mouth went numb and she was unable to speak for about fifteen seconds. Two days later the consumer went to the Doctor but was informed that too much time had passed to be able to treat it; she was also told keep notes about how she has been feeling. The numbness feeling has been coming and going for the past three weeks and lasts variable times as well as affects different areas of her right side of her body. 09/21/2022 The consumer went to the Doctor and was informed that her lower right lung has started spasm. The consumer states that she used the unit once inside her home and once outside her home. The consumer plans on keeping the insecticide spray for at least the next thirty days in case an investigation ensues.
I purchased "Vacplus Moisture Absorber Packets, Fragrance Free (10 Pack), Humidity Packs, Hanging Closet Dehumidifier Bags, Desiccant 9.8OZ (Nickname: VA-M158)" on Amazon. The product page lists the Seller as "Vacplus-BAYL" and states the product to be shipped by Amazon. When I received the product from Amazon, I was confused and became concerned. The product label does not tell me what the products is. I'm not sure how to handle and use the product . I'm also concerned about using the product safely because the label does not include any first aid information or tell me what steps to take if an accident occurs in my home or with my kids. I am not sure if this product is safe for my kids. The label states the product is not edible, but the product is small and capable of being ingested easily (either by eating or drinking), and I'm not sure what steps I need to take if one of my kids were to ingest these chemicals. I'm also not sure if the product is safe for the environment or what I should do to handle the product or discard the chemicals after use. The front label does not have a Signal Word or any affirmative statement of the principal hazards. I'm not sure how hazardous the chemicals are inside the product or on its packaging. I am unsure how to contact for further information about the product because the label does not tell me the name of manufacturer, and I'm not sure where the business is located. The sole information about the business appears in Chinese characters on the Amazon product listing. There is nothing on the label about who makes, sells or distributes the products in the United States. This product is defective and its label is unacceptable. The product is misbranded. The product label does not have a Signal Word and lacks all conspicuous warnings about potential product hazards. The label lacks proper warnings on both the front and back of the product. The label is also misleading and deceptive because there is no way for anyone to cont
Dear [REDACTED]: I'm writing about your product STEM. What a horrible product. Your advertising says "safe for kids and pets". Your directions do say "safe anywhere in the home" and warns "slippery when wet" on the front and rear labels. But these don't cover how dangerous this product is. Let me start by saying I am handicapped with severe mobility issues and I am at high risk for Covid, so all my groceries are delivered. I bought STEM because the store did not have [REDACTED]. What I wanted it for, was to spray around baseboards and on the exit door steps to get any bugs before they crawl into the house. [REDACTED] is a superior product. On Tuesday July 26, I sprayed STEM around the baseboard in my first floor halfbath since I had seen one stray carpenter ant on the ceramic tile floor. The smell is almost overpoweringly offensive, so I left the exhaust fan running for days. On Thursday, I checked the bathroom and saw the STEM had not dried, and I could see wet puddles around the baseboard. I tried soaking those up with paper towels, not an easy task, but I used my cane to push the paper towels along the floor. When I had a visitor on Friday July 29, she thought the floor was too slippery, and she mopped it with a [REDACTED]. The fan was still running as the smell from the STEM was still offensive. By Tuesday August 2, the floor felt dry to the touch but slick. I tried it with the tip of my rubber-soled shoes, and it was still slippery. My friend came to visit again on Friday August 5. She scrubbed the door with dish liquid - it cuts grease. The floor is ok now. That downstairs bathroom was out of commission for over a week. I'm glad I have other bathrooms on the second floor, and a Stairlift to be able to go upstairs, although what used to be a quick trip to the restroom had become a 20 minute journey. I am also very glad I did not use STEM anywhere else in the house. Most of the first floor has ceramic tile floors, particularly at the exit doors, so I w
Dear CPSC, I am writing to report a safety concern regarding a product marketed as a whipped cream charger under the brand name "Galaxy Gas." Although this product is intended for culinary use, it is increasingly being misused as a recreational inhalant. This misuse appears to be facilitated by the products design, specifically the "Pressure Release Valve," which may be being used to directly inhale the gas. There are numerous videos online showcasing this dangerous behavior, which suggests that the product may pose a significant risk to consumer health. The potential for harm (as far as I am aware) includes asphyxiation, neurological damage, and other serious health risks associated with inhalant abuse. Given the growing evidence of misuse and the associated risks, I believe an investigation is necessary to determine whether the products design and marketing are contributing to this hazardous behavior. I urge the CPSC to review this matter to ensure that the product is safe for its intended use and that any necessary actions are taken to protect consumers. Thank you for your attention to this serious issue. Sincerely, [REDACTED] - A concerned consumer
On July 10 of this year, I reported this product for sale on Amazon, on CPSC report #Report No. [REDACTED]. I just ran across your email confirmation of my report and looked at the Amazon site again. The product is still for sale, still with ZERO safety warnings, as required. I tried reporting to Amazon without success. After 3 tries (supposedly my reviews did not meet their community guidelines, but they did not say which guideline or why), my review was finally posted. According to other reviews, this material has been sold to individuals who knew nothing of its toxic hazards, and no safety information was or is provided. Being a carcinogen, a teratogen, a mutagen, a respiratory sensitizer, a skin sensitizer, and a strong oxidizer, it is essential that appropriate safety information be provided. Despite several reviews citing the hazards and risks, this company chooses to ignore public safety. Despite CPSC's communication to the company on 7/12, the Amazon web page still has no safety information.
(08/14/2020) The consumer stated that her husband had a reaction to the product. He sprayed the product inside of his swim goggles and went swimming for about an hour. When he took the goggles off, his eyes were burning. He washed his eyes out with water, but in the middle of the night, his eyes were still burning. The consumer stated that she called the Poison Control Center who advised her to go to the ER. When they got to the ER, her husband's eyes were sealed shut and had to be forced open. The chemicals in the defogger caused a corneal abrasion on her husband's right eye. The consumer stated that her husband has used the product before but never under water. The consumer also stated that the warning on the label states that the product is not recommended for swim goggles.
I called poison control after my 7 year old son ingested "Color your fire magical flames" that he was given in a 4th of july parade. Everything else given to kids was candy. This was mixed in his candy bag. The product packaging looks like "pop rocks" and the product looks like sugar crystal blue pop rocks. There are other similar flame color for fires all in similar packets to children's candy. The packet is easily opened by children think it is candy.
Showing 8 of 28 reports.
Product Recalls
Search for active and past recalls related to chemicals, not elsewhere classified on the CPSC website.
Compare beyond Home Workshop Tools & Equipment
Nationwide peers by danger score, ER volume & hospitalization
Three PlainSafety-derived comparison paths for Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified: cross-group products nearest on danger score (40/100), estimated annual ER visits (8,041/yr), and hospitalization share (4.7%). Same-group neighbours stay in Related Products above.
Similar danger score
Nearest cross-group products by PlainSafety danger score (100-point scale).
Similar ER visit volume
Nearest cross-group products by NEISS estimated annual ER visits.
Similar hospitalization rate
Nearest cross-group products by % of NEISS ER visits resulting in hospital admission.
Related Products in Home Workshop Tools & Equipment
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, Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified ranks #173 of 838 scored CPSC product categories by PlainSafety danger score and #233 of 838 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume.
Frequently Asked Questions
Where does chemicals, not elsewhere classified rank on danger score versus ER volume?
Among 838 scored CPSC product categories, chemicals, not elsewhere classified ranks #173 by PlainSafety danger score (40/100) and #233 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume (8,041/yr). The two rankings come from the same NEISS extract and are not the same order.
What are the most common injuries from chemicals, not elsewhere classified?
The most common injury is poisoning to the all parts body, accounting for approximately 69,318 injuries over 20 years.
Are injuries from chemicals, not elsewhere classified increasing or decreasing?
Up 31% over 5 years.
Who is most at risk for chemicals, not elsewhere classified injuries?
The 0-4 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 30,729 cases recorded over 20 years. Males are more frequently injured in this age group.
What happens when someone is injured by chemicals, not elsewhere classified?
Of all ER visits involving chemicals, not elsewhere classified, approximately 4.7% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (95.3%) are treated and released from the emergency department.
How can I report a safety problem with chemicals, not elsewhere classified?
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.
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.