CPSC NEISS · code 1393

Chemistry Sets Or Science Kits

Chemistry Sets Or Science Kits: danger rank #526 of 838 is not ER-volume rank #717 of 838 (162 estimated ER visits a year; rising by about 71% over the last five years).

Toys & Children's Recreation CPSC NEISS through 2024

Danger score versus ER volume

Danger score versus ER volume

According to CPSC NEISS 2005-2024, Chemistry Sets Or Science Kits ranks #526 of 838 by danger score (33/100) at ER-volume #717 of 838 (162/yr). They are not the same ranking.

#526
danger rank of 838
#717
ER-volume rank of 838
33/100
danger score
162/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 (33/100) across 838 scored CPSC product categories

33 Lower than most lower than 63% 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: 34/100

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.

B
Dimension Value National percentile Weight applied Source
Injury severity (hospitalization + fatality blend) 2 15th 35% CPSC NEISS 20-year severity index
Annual ER injury volume 162 12th 30% CPSC NEISS estimated annual ER-treated injuries
5-year injury trend +71% 98th 15% CPSC NEISS 5-year % change in ER-treated injuries
Consumer incident reports 12 51st 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 3,242 estimated ER injuries land on the body

Body-part shares from the same CPSC NEISS injury_types extract for product code 1393. Segments sum to 3,242 - 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 Toys & Children's Recreation 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.

Toys & Children's Recreation danger scores

1. Kites Or Kite String46/1002. Skateboards, Unpowered Or…43/1003. Fireworks43/1004. Toys, Not Elsewhere Class…40/1005. Toys, Not Specified39/1006. Toy Guns With Projectiles38/1007. Building Sets38/1008. Chemistry Sets Or Science…33/100
Higher score = higher composite danger in this group. Peer set is other scored products sharing the same CPSC group.
0/100100/10033/100
PlainSafety danger score · Chemistry Sets Or Science Kits

Source: CPSC NEISS danger-score model As of 2024

How this 33/100 score is built

The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for chemistry sets or science kits - no opinion, no editorializing:

  • Injury volume 162 ER visits/yr Low volume
  • Severity (hospitalization rate) 2.1% Low admission rate
  • Fatality rate 0.00% No recorded fatalities
  • 5-year trend+71%

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 chemistry sets or science kits are rising by about 71% over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2021 (451 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2019 (70 estimated visits). The single most common ER diagnosis is poisoning to the all parts body, accounting for approximately 671 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by laceration to the finger (435 cases). The 5-14 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 1,552 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 2.1% of ER visits involving this product end in hospital admission or transfer.

Beyond the hospital-sampled NEISS projections, this page also aggregates 12 consumer incident reports filed directly on SaferProducts.gov, plus 20 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how chemistry sets or science kits 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)

0100200300400500 20052008201120142017202020232024 113
Estimated annual emergency-room visits for Chemistry Sets Or Science Kits, 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
0-4 472 107 579
5-14 1,163 389 1,552
15-24 490 219 709
25-34 139 30 169
35-44 149 67 216
55-64 16 0 16

Most Common Injuries

Body Part Diagnosis Est. Injuries
All Parts Body Poisoning 671
Finger Laceration 435
Internal Ingestion 307
Hand Burns, Thermal 263
Hand Laceration 206
Face Burn, Chemical 199
Eyeball Burn, Chemical 156
Face Burns, Thermal 107
Eyeball Derma/conjunct 101
Hand Puncture 96
Face Foreign Body 80
Foot Laceration 77
Hand Contusions, Abr. 74
Lower Arm Other 71
Face Burn, Scald 51

Severity Breakdown

Treated/examined And Released 96.7% (3,136)
Treated And Admitted/hospitalized 2.6% (83)
Held For Observation 0.7% (23)

ER Visit Narratives

Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.

Age 4 · Female · Wrist · Burn, Chemical · 2024

4YOF WAS PLAYING WITH A NEW CHEMISTRY SET THAT HER BROTHER GOT FOR CHRISTMAS AND SUSTAINED A CHEMICAL BURN TO WRIST DX: CHEMICAL BURN TO WRIST

Age 16 · Female · Hand · Foreign Body · 2024

16YOF, AT SCHOOL A GLASS CHEMISTRY CLASS PIPETTE BROKE AND GOT A SHARD LODGED IN RIGHT PALM, DX: GLASS FOREIGN BODY IN SKIN

Age 2 · Female · All Parts Body · Poisoning · 2024

2YOF DRANK 2 OZ OF GROWING SOLUTION (SODIUM OXIDE, WATER OXIDE, AND SODIUM META-SALICYLATE) FROM A TOY CRYSTAL GROWING SCIENCE KIT AT HOME, C/O VOMITING. DX: ACCIDENTAL INGESTION OF CAUSTIC ALKALI; ABDOMINAL PAIN.

Age 7 · Male · Foot · Laceration · 2023

7YOM PRESENTS TO ED W/ L FOOT LAC. PT WAS PLAYING W/ A CHEMISTRY SET HAD BROKEN GLASS FLASKS STEPPED ON ONE OF THE OBJECTS.DAD IS WORRIED FOR RETAINED FOREIGN BODY POSSIBLEY.PT IS UTD ON VACCINESDX: AC TO L FOOT

Age 3 · Male · All Parts Body · Poisoning · 2023

3 YOM PRESUMED PT INGESTED SEED ROCK POWDER FROM CRYSTAL GROWING SCIENCE KIT DX INGESTION NON-TOXIC SUBSTANCE

Age 3 · Male · Internal · Ingestion · 2023

3 YOM CONCERN MAY HAVE SWALLOWED PIECE OF SCIENCE KIT, PIECE MISSING DX POSSIBLE FB INGESTION

Age 6 · Male · Internal · Ingestion · 2023

6 YOM CONCERN HE MAY HAVE SWALLOWED PIECE OF SCIENCE KIT, MISSING PIECE DX POSSIBLE FB INGESTION

Age 35 · Female · Hand · Burns, Thermal · 2023

35YOF, HELPING CHILDREN MAKE SMORES WHEN DAUGHTER BUMPED INTO HER KNOCKING HER INTO THE HOT TABLETOP BURNER BURING HAND DX: BUNRN OF BACK OF RIGHT HAND

Age 4 · Female · Internal · Ingestion · 2023

4YOF INGESTED PLASTER FROM BROTHERS SCIENCE KIT. DX INGESTED FB

Age 213 · Male · Internal · Ingestion · 2023

13MOM GOT INTO SIBLINGS SCIENCE KIT AND ATE FAKE SNOW AND POSSIBLY WATER BEADS DX: INGESTED FOREIGN BODY

Age 4 · Male · All Parts Body · Poisoning · 2022

4 YOM C/O WENT INTO HIS BROTHERS ROOM AND DRANK EOSIN DYE FROM HIS SCIENCE KIT. DX ACCIDENTAL DRUG INGESTION

Age 10 · Male · Eyeball · Derma/conjunct · 2022

10 YOM GOT A DRIED CHEMICAL POWDER IN HIS EYE FROM A CRYSTAL GROWING KITDX: ACUTE TOXIC CONJUNCTIVITIS LEFT EYE

Consumer Incident Reports

Reports filed by consumers on SaferProducts.gov.

7/8/2012 · No Incident, No Injury · littlebits electronics · Arizona

The product "littleBits" is advertised as a children's toy. It contains small magnets along with other small electrical parts. It is sold on the Amazon website but it carries a warning which says: "Warning: Choking Hazard -- WARNING: Keep Away From All Children. Do not put in mouth or nose. This product contains small magnets. Swallowed magnets can stick together across intestines causing serious infections and death. Seek immediate medical attention if magnets are swallowed or inhaled." This product was discussed as a children's toy on CNN at 11:30 A.M. Arizona time on the show "The Next List" in an interview with the developer,[REDACTED]. As a pediatrician I state that this toy represents a very dangerous hazard to children and should not be promoted or advertised as a children's toy.

6/8/2023 · Injury, Seen by Medical Professional · Mindware Corporation · Nevada

I purchased a 12 Day Science Kit - MindWare from Target for my child. The chemicals in the science kit caused my son to have a severe skin reaction.

5/3/2021 · Injury, First Aid Received by Non-Medical Professional · Horizon Group USA · Virginia

Chemical Burn With Children’s STEM Product

4/7/2015 · Incident, No Injury · C & A Scientific Co. · Illinois

The information below was taken from an email sent to the CPSC Information Center: The consumer believes that his alcohol burners present the same exact problem as the ones in Recall# 06-061. The consumer has 50 unsafe wick-less metal alcohol burners (used in scientific experiments). Description: The metal alcohol burner consists of a stainless steel tank with a screw-on steel lid. A copper tubing wick in the shape of a loop is soldered on the top of the burner's lid. The burner and lid measure 3-inches in diameter by 3 ½-inches high. The burner also has a separate metal top which fits over the copper wick to act as a snuffer, and a metal heat shield designed to sit on top of the lid. It has a rubber keeper to prevent vaporization of alcohol. The item number 97-5320 is printed on the burner's packaging. The possible name of the manufacture is “Premier” located in China (see photo of shipping container). The shipping container has this information on it also: C.A PO. No.P182 BALTIMOR C/NO. MADE IN CHINA. A possible injury or property damage can occur due to flammable alcohol leaking from the holes located in the copper tubing on the upper coil portion of the burner. The holes are in a placement where the rubber keeper/stopper cannot prevent fuel from leaking out when tipped over or when the internal temperature of the fuel tank rises and forces fuel to rise upward through the copper tubes leading to the coil on the surface of the burner. (See photo of hole not being covered by rubber keeper/stopper) I have inspected 10 out of the 50 received and all have the same hole placement. (see photo of hole in relation to rubber keeper/stopper). On or about March 21 is when I observed the alcohol leaking from the holes in the copper coil. At that time I notified the retailer of the problem. Their response was: “as to the product recall, we checked with the manufacturer and that was for a previous model, not this one”. Dated: March 23, 2015 On or about March

4/3/2019 · Injury, Seen by Medical Professional · MERCHSOURCE LLC · Virginia

There is a science toy with the Discovery Logo called Discovery Super Stink Lab. The kit is really dangerous (EMTs were called to our house), the stink permeates everything you own (which has to be thrown out if in contact), and the product needs to be taken off the market. There are tons of reviews on the internet about how terrible it is and I couldn’t agree more. My son was burned by the product and was screaming in the shower for 10 minutes from being in contact with the “toy”. I have bags of clothes and towels that have to be thrown out and our house reeks from the stuff. Just so you know the kit was used outside and only came in the house from getting on my son.

4/23/2014 · Injury, First Aid Received by Non-Medical Professional · Fascinations, Inc · Massachusetts

We bought my 7-year-old son the Fascination AntWorks ant farm for his birthday on April 1, 2007. We also ordered the two tubes of red ants sold alongside the item on Amazon.com. The ant farm looked secure but the ants were able to burrow out, which they did this past weekend. Perhaps there was a small invisible gap in the plastic housing that we didn't see; it almost looks as though the ants bit or tunneled their way out. In any case, they escaped and bit my son all over while he slept. He has about 15 or so bites all over his body, and they are very itchy and painful. There were ants all over the floor of his room. We have since thrown away the ant farm and put out ant traps. Terrible! I wouldn't wish this on another parent, ever.

2/9/2022 · Incident, No Injury · SCIENTIFICS DIRECT · Unspecified

1/25/2022: The consumer and her granddaughter were conducting an experiment with the science kit. They placed a substance that came in the kit, into a glass container, that the consumer owned. The substance was supposed to be heated in the microwave for 60 seconds. However, after heating it for 30 seconds, the consumer’s granddaughter told her that the product was catching fire. The consumer said no and turned the microwave off. A few seconds later, she restarted it and within a seconds, the glass and the contents inside it, exploded in the microwave. Damage was limited to the product inside, but there was none to the microwave itself. The consumer cleaned the glass up without injury. 1/2022: The consumer called the manufacturer and reported the problem to them. Their rep. offered to reimburse her the cost of the kit. The consumer asked to speak with someone in their Science Department, but the rep. said that the person (name unknown) was unavailable and would call her back. She never received a call back. She is not sure if or when they’ll send the reimbursement, but she’s more concerned with discussing the safety of the product with the appropriate person in the firm. There was a precaution “only use with adult supervision.” There were no other warnings on the product.

2/23/2025 · Injury, No First Aid or Medical Attention Received · Smartivity Labs Pvt. Ltd. · Arizona

Children (6yo+) oriented STEM kit directed family of 4 to immediately activate a high powered UV bulb with no safety instruction or gear. The nature of the instruction all but forced everyone involved to be looking right at the UV bulb as it ignited. An intended learning gift has resulted in lasting and debilitating ocular discomfort. There are known likely long-term risks with this kind of exposure. Please, this product must be removed asap.

Showing 8 of 12 reports.

Product Recalls

Search for active and past recalls related to chemistry sets or science kits on the CPSC website.

Compare beyond Toys & Children's Recreation

Nationwide peers by danger score, ER volume & hospitalization

Three PlainSafety-derived comparison paths for Chemistry Sets Or Science Kits: cross-group products nearest on danger score (33/100), estimated annual ER visits (162/yr), and hospitalization share (2.1%). 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, Chemistry Sets Or Science Kits ranks #526 of 838 scored CPSC product categories by PlainSafety danger score and #717 of 838 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume.

Frequently Asked Questions

Where does chemistry sets or science kits rank on danger score versus ER volume?

Among 838 scored CPSC product categories, chemistry sets or science kits ranks #526 by PlainSafety danger score (33/100) and #717 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume (162/yr). The two rankings come from the same NEISS extract and are not the same order.

What are the most common injuries from chemistry sets or science kits?

The most common injury is poisoning to the all parts body, accounting for approximately 671 injuries over 20 years.

Are injuries from chemistry sets or science kits increasing or decreasing?

Up 71% over 5 years.

Who is most at risk for chemistry sets or science kits injuries?

The 5-14 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 1,552 cases recorded over 20 years. Males are more frequently injured in this age group.

What happens when someone is injured by chemistry sets or science kits?

Of all ER visits involving chemistry sets or science kits, approximately 2.1% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (97.9%) are treated and released from the emergency department.

How can I report a safety problem with chemistry sets or science kits?

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 Chemistry Sets Or Science Kits 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.