Danger score versus ER volume
Danger score versus ER volume
According to CPSC NEISS 2005-2024, Detergents, Not Specified ranks #482 of 838 by danger score (34/100) at ER-volume #415 of 838 (2,115/yr). They are not the same ranking.
- #482
- danger rank of 838
- #415
- ER-volume rank of 838
- 34/100
- danger score
- 2,115/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 (34/100) across 838 scored CPSC product categories
34 Lower than most lower than 57% 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: 35/100
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) | 2 | 11th | 35% | CPSC NEISS 20-year severity index |
| Annual ER injury volume | 2,115 | 49th | 30% | CPSC NEISS estimated annual ER-treated injuries |
| 5-year injury trend | +9% | 76th | 15% | CPSC NEISS 5-year % change in ER-treated injuries |
| Consumer incident reports | 2 | 25th | 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 42,291 estimated ER injuries land on the body
Body-part shares from the same CPSC NEISS injury_types extract for product code 976. Segments sum to 42,291 - 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 34/100 score is built
The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for detergents, not specified - no opinion, no editorializing:
- Injury volume 2,115 ER visits/yr Below median volume
- Severity (hospitalization rate) 1.6% Low admission rate
- Fatality rate 0.00% No recorded fatalities
- 5-year trend+9%
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 detergents, not specified are roughly flat over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2013 (3,297 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2021 (1,152 estimated visits). The single most common ER diagnosis is derma/conjunct to the all parts body, accounting for approximately 10,076 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by derma/conjunct to the upper trunk (4,271 cases). The 0-4 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 8,505 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 1.6% of ER visits involving this product end in hospital admission or transfer.
Beyond the hospital-sampled NEISS projections, this page also aggregates 2 consumer incident reports filed directly on SaferProducts.gov, plus 20 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how detergents, not specified 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 | 4,636 | 3,869 | |
| 5-14 | 2,222 | 1,714 | |
| 15-24 | 1,763 | 4,925 | |
| 25-34 | 2,640 | 3,457 | |
| 35-44 | 1,714 | 3,851 | |
| 45-54 | 1,875 | 2,692 | |
| 55-64 | 1,387 | 2,446 | |
| 65-74 | 656 | 1,162 | |
| 75+ | 477 | 799 |
Most Common Injuries
| Body Part | Diagnosis | Est. Injuries |
|---|---|---|
| All Parts Body | Derma/conjunct | |
| Upper Trunk | Derma/conjunct | |
| All Parts Body | Poisoning | |
| Face | Derma/conjunct | |
| Not Stated/unk | Derma/conjunct | |
| Lower Arm | Derma/conjunct | |
| Hand | Derma/conjunct | |
| Lower Trunk | Derma/conjunct | |
| Lower Leg | Derma/conjunct | |
| Eyeball | Derma/conjunct | |
| Neck | Derma/conjunct | |
| Eyeball | Other | |
| Upper Leg | Derma/conjunct | |
| Eyeball | Burn, Chemical | |
| Eyeball | Contusions, Abr. |
Severity Breakdown
ER Visit Narratives
Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.
2YOM PRESENTS WITH A RASH AFTER STARTING A NEW DETERGENT DX: RASH
28YOM REPORTS FROM HOME AFTER HE SLIPPED ON DETERGENT IN HIS BASEMENT AND FELL DIRECTLY ON HIS KNEE. DX KNEE PAIN
12 YOF WITH LEFT GREAT TOE PAIN AFTER DROPPING A BOTTLE OF DETERGENT ON IT A FEW HOURS PTA. DX CONTUSION LEFT GREAT TOE WITHOUT TOE DAMAGE
12YOM WAS WASHING THE CAR A COUPLE DAYS AGO WHEN HE GOT SOME DETERGENT IN HIS RIGHT EAR HE RINSED IT OUT NOW INFECTED DX:OTITIS EXTERNA
34 YOF WITH ITCHING WITH A RASH OVER HER BODY, WORSE IN HER AXILLARY AREA, BACK, AND PELVIS. STATES RECENTLY USED A NEW DETERGENT AND ITCHING STARTED THEREAFTER. DX ALLERGIC URTICARIA
77 YOM STARTED USING A NEW DETERGENT 3 DAYS AGO AND NOW HAS DEVELOPED A RASH TO HIS ARMS, BACK AND CHEST. DX RASH DUE TO ALLERGY, URTICARIA
77YOM WASHED HIS SHEETS WITH BRAND NEW DETERGENT AND DEVELOPED A RASH DX:ALLERGIC REACTION
44YOM PRESENTS TO ED WITH 3 DAYS OF ITCHY RASH ON HIS ARMS AND L LEG, REPORTS USING NEW DETERGENT. DX: RASH
60 YOM REPORTS A RASH TO THE UPPER BACK FOR THE PAST MONTH. STATES HE SWITCHED BACK TO AN OLD DETERGENT. STATES HE ALSO HAS A HEMATOMA ON THE ROOF OF HIS MOUTH WHERE HE TRIED TO REMOVE SOME DENTURE GLUE. DX: RASH, HEMATOMA
2 YOM PRESENTS WITH RASH AND SWELLING TO HIS FACE WORSENING SINCE LAST NIGHT. MOM STATES SHE USED A NEW DETERGENT YESTERDAY. DX: ALLERGIC REACTION
59YOF COMING FROM FACILITY AND WAS WITNESSED DRINKING DETERGENT .PT STATES SHE THOUGHT IT WAS SOMETHING ELSE. BAL 56 DX: DRANK DETERGENT
32YOM STARTED USING A NEW DETERGENT AND DEVELOPED AN ITCHY RASH ALL OVER BODY DX: CONTACT DERMATITIS
Consumer Incident Reports
Reports filed by consumers on SaferProducts.gov.
I went to the REI Co-op in Eugene, Oregon, and bought Bottle Bright Cleaning Tablets to try to remove a lingering smell of tea in a water bottle. I brought the product home and proceeded to use it, having taken a general look at the label. It mentioned using warm water if you wanted strong action. I figured, the hotter the better, and used my electric kettle to prepare some water. Just after the water boiled, I poured some of it into the bottle, then dropped a tablet into the bottle. The ingredients in the product reacted with hot water violently, and it fizzed back out onto the back of my right hand. I rinsed my hand and washed it. Soon after, I applied ice. It began to sting unless ice or cool water was directly applied. My husband became concerned, did some research into the ingredients, and called Poison Control. Poison Control recommended I go to the emergency room, so I did. The exam included photographs of my hand, which I have available. The back of my right hand was very irritated, a little reddish, and had a couple small blisters due to a chemical and thermal burn. The clinician recommended a tetanus booster, which I received. He also got me [REDACTED], which I applied for a couple days and was soothing and seemed to help. I am really aggravated the company designed the label to appear very natural seeming and low-risk, but mineral agents can be very reactive it turns out! I recommend they add a specific warning about the highest safe temperature to avoid fizzing of the product out of the bottle.
To Whom it May Concern, I am writing to you as a concerned consumer and a professional with a background in Biomedical Engineering, holding a Master's degree and having acquired laboratory safety training from my experience in various chemistry labs. I wish to express my concerns regarding a widely-used product, "Dawn Platinum Powerwash Dish Soap Spray". I understand that for a product like this to be available on the market, a substantial amount of safety testing and due diligence would typically be performed to ensure it does not pose a significant risk under normal usage conditions. However, my concerns are specifically related to the potential for long-term health impacts due to the inhalation of the very fine mist that is produced by this product's unique spray mechanism. The Dawn Platinum Powerwash Dish Soap Spray employs a unique spray nozzle that produces a very fine mist, distinct from a traditional spray bottle. This atomization of the soap increases the potential for inhalation exposure. I've observed that this fine mist seems to linger in the air, indicating that particles remain suspended for several minutes. From my personal experience, there is a strong odor associated with the use of this product, and I have experienced noticeable lung irritation after being in the vicinity where it was sprayed. The product contains several chemicals such as Alcohol Denat., C10-16 Alkyldimethylamine Oxide, Dipropylene Glycol Butyl Ether, Ethanolamine, and Sodium Laureth Sulfate, which are known to potentially cause respiratory irritation upon inhalation. It also includes fragrances, which can trigger allergies and asthma in sensitive individuals. Considering the product's widespread use and frequency, there could be a significant health impact, especially for sensitive populations such as children, elderly, and individuals with existing respiratory conditions. Even with moderate exposure, this could potentially lead to chronic respiratory problems, wi
Product Recalls
Search for active and past recalls related to detergents, not specified on the CPSC website.
Compare beyond Home Workshop Tools & Equipment
Nationwide peers by danger score, ER volume & hospitalization
Three PlainSafety-derived comparison paths for Detergents, Not Specified: cross-group products nearest on danger score (34/100), estimated annual ER visits (2,115/yr), and hospitalization share (1.6%). 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, Detergents, Not Specified ranks #482 of 838 scored CPSC product categories by PlainSafety danger score and #415 of 838 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume.
Frequently Asked Questions
Where does detergents, not specified rank on danger score versus ER volume?
Among 838 scored CPSC product categories, detergents, not specified ranks #482 by PlainSafety danger score (34/100) and #415 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume (2,115/yr). The two rankings come from the same NEISS extract and are not the same order.
What are the most common injuries from detergents, not specified?
The most common injury is derma/conjunct to the all parts body, accounting for approximately 10,076 injuries over 20 years.
Are injuries from detergents, not specified increasing or decreasing?
Stable over 5 years.
Who is most at risk for detergents, not specified injuries?
The 0-4 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 8,505 cases recorded over 20 years. Males are more frequently injured in this age group.
What happens when someone is injured by detergents, not specified?
Of all ER visits involving detergents, not specified, approximately 1.6% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (98.4%) are treated and released from the emergency department.
How can I report a safety problem with detergents, not specified?
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.