CPSC NEISS · code 952

Fabric Treatment Products

Fabric Treatment Products: danger rank #622 of 838 is not ER-volume rank #405 of 838 (2,222 estimated ER visits a year; declining by about 28% 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, Fabric Treatment Products ranks #622 of 838 by danger score (31/100) at ER-volume #405 of 838 (2,222/yr). They are not the same ranking.

#622
danger rank of 838
#405
ER-volume rank of 838
31/100
danger score
2,222/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 (31/100) across 838 scored CPSC product categories

31 Lower than most lower than 74% 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: 37/100

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) 1 9th 35% CPSC NEISS 20-year severity index
Annual ER injury volume 2,222 50th 30% CPSC NEISS estimated annual ER-treated injuries
5-year injury trend -28% 23rd 15% CPSC NEISS 5-year % change in ER-treated injuries
Consumer incident reports 60 76th 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 44,441 estimated ER injuries land on the body

Body-part shares from the same CPSC NEISS injury_types extract for product code 952. Segments sum to 44,441 - 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. Fabric Treatment Products31/100
Higher score = higher composite danger in this group. Peer set is other scored products sharing the same CPSC group.
0/100100/10031/100
PlainSafety danger score · Fabric Treatment Products

Source: CPSC NEISS danger-score model As of 2024

How this 31/100 score is built

The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for fabric treatment products - no opinion, no editorializing:

  • Injury volume 2,222 ER visits/yr Above median volume
  • Severity (hospitalization rate) 1.5% Low admission rate
  • Fatality rate 0.00% No recorded fatalities
  • 5-year trend-28%

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 fabric treatment products are declining by about 28% over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2019 (3,145 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2010 (1,579 estimated visits). The single most common ER diagnosis is derma/conjunct to the all parts body, accounting for approximately 6,862 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by poisoning to the all parts body (5,747 cases). The 0-4 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 11,838 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 1.5% of ER visits involving this product end in hospital admission or transfer.

Beyond the hospital-sampled NEISS projections, this page also aggregates 60 consumer incident reports filed directly on SaferProducts.gov, plus 20 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how fabric treatment products 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)

2K2K3K3K4K 20052008201120142017202020232024 2K
Estimated annual emergency-room visits for Fabric Treatment Products, 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 7,522 4,316 11,838
5-14 2,829 2,514 5,343
15-24 2,543 3,259 5,802
25-34 2,160 3,463 5,623
35-44 1,668 3,530 5,236
45-54 1,646 3,029 4,675
55-64 914 1,575 2,489
65-74 509 1,366 1,875
75+ 333 1,220 1,553

Most Common Injuries

Body Part Diagnosis Est. Injuries
All Parts Body Derma/conjunct 6,862
All Parts Body Poisoning 5,747
Upper Trunk Derma/conjunct 5,586
Not Stated/unk Derma/conjunct 2,820
Eyeball Derma/conjunct 2,481
Face Derma/conjunct 1,835
Lower Trunk Derma/conjunct 1,556
Eyeball Other 1,061
Lower Arm Derma/conjunct 1,058
Eyeball Burn, Chemical 923
Lower Leg Derma/conjunct 914
Neck Derma/conjunct 756
All Parts Body Other 751
Head Internal Injury 621
Eyeball Contusions, Abr. 545

Severity Breakdown

Treated/examined And Released 97.0% (43,106)
Treated And Admitted/hospitalized 1.3% (572)
Left Without Being Seen 1.1% (506)
Held For Observation 0.4% (166)
Treated And Transferred 0.2% (91)

ER Visit Narratives

Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.

Age 10 · Female · Lower Trunk · Derma/conjunct · 2024

10YOF WITH RASH TO SIDE OF STOMACH WITH ITCHING, POSSIBLE FROM NEW FABRIC SOFTENER DX ALLERGIC REACTION

Age 84 · Female · Face · Burn, Chemical · 2024

84 YOF WAS WASHING LAUNDRY WITH A LAUNDRY STAIN REMOVER WHICH CONTAINS HYDROGEN PEROXIDE. AFTER SHE SCRUBBED HER CLOTHES SHE WENT TO PUT ON HER GLASSES. SHE HAD SOME FOAM ON HER HANDS WHICH CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE RIGHT EYE PERIORBITTAL AREA. NO CONTACT WITH EYEBALL ITSELF. DX: CHEMICAL BURN

Age 3 · Male · Eyeball · Derma/conjunct · 2024

3YOM W/R EYE IRRITATION & REDNESS AFTER EXPOSURE TO *** SPRAY. PTA,PT SPRAYED *** CLEANER INTO R EYE. HE SPRAYED THE EYE ONCE. HE APPEARED TO HAVE R EYE PAIN&THERE WAS REDNESS PRESENT. PARENT IRRIGATED AT HOME PTA. DX: CHEMICAL CONJUNTIVITIS OF RIGHT EYE

Age 216 · Male · Eyeball · Other · 2024

16MOM, ACCIDENTALY SPRAYED *** IN EYES, EYES FLUSHED BY PARENTS AT HOME, C/O EYES WATERING DX: ALKALINE EXPOSURE TO BILATERAL EYES

Age 56 · Male · Head · Internal Injury · 2024

56 YOM GROUND LEVEL FALL, SLIPPED ON A DRYER SHEET, CRUTCHES SLIPPED ON IT FELL. DX CLOSED HEAD INJURY, HIP CONTUSION

Age 52 · Female · Upper Trunk · Derma/conjunct · 2024

52YOF PT USED A DRYER SHEET ON LAUNDRY; C/O RASH TO TRUNK DX: RASH, NONSPECIFIC ERUPTION, ELEVATED BLOOD PRESSURE

Age 60 · Female · Head · Other · 2024

60YOF PRESENTING WITH HEADACHE. PER PT, SHE WAS IN THE BATHROOM AND REACHED ABOVE HER CABINET TO GRAB SOMETHING AND A FABRIC SOFTENER BOTTLE FELL AND HIT HIT HEAD. PT ALSO HAS NECK PAIN DX; ACUTE NONINTRACTABLE HEADACHE

Age 5 · Male · All Parts Body · Derma/conjunct · 2024

5YOM PRESENTS TO THE ED AFTER THE PATIENT COMPLAINS OF BOSY RASH. PER PATIENT'S MOM THEY STARTED USING NEW SOFTNER. DX: RASH, URTICARIAL RASH

Age 3 · Female · All Parts Body · Poisoning · 2024

3YOF PATIENT DRANK FROM A *** BOTTLE. DX: INGESTION OF TOXIN

Age 85 · Female · Lower Trunk · Burn, Chemical · 2024

85 YOF WAS DOING LAUNDRY 2 DAYS AGO WHEN SHE SPILLED *** LAUNDRY SANITZER NON-BLEACH FORMULA ONTO THE CUSHION OF HER WHEELCHAIR AND SAT IN IT FOR SEVERAL HOURS, NOW HAD WOUNDS AND ERYTHEMA TO BUTTOCKS. DX: PARTIAL THICKNESS CHEMICAL BURNS TO BUTTOCKS

Age 50 · Female · All Parts Body · Derma/conjunct · 2024

50YOF, PRESENTING WITH DIFFUSE BODY HIVES ASSOCIATED WITH SOME WHEEZING THE ONLY NEW EXPOSURE THAT SHE CAN THINK OF IS A NEW FABRIC SOFTENER THAT BEEN USING LATELY DX: ALLERGIC REACTION

Age 3 · Male · All Parts Body · Derma/conjunct · 2024

3YOM MOM USED DETERGENT WITH NEW SCENT BEADS AND HE DEVELOPED A RASH ALL OVER BODY DX: RASH

Consumer Incident Reports

Reports filed by consumers on SaferProducts.gov.

9/9/2019 · Injury, Level of care not known · The Procter & Gamble Company · California

Next door neighbors have been using fabric softener dryer sheets for past ten years(STARTING IN 2010 AND CONTINUES TILL TODAY 9.9.2019 )and the fumes waft across the front of the house. I have not been able to suggest to use an alternative that will not affect my well being ( I get immediate headaches, nausea and generally am debilitated by the fumes). We went to mediation in front of an officer of the law, to try to convince them that I am very sensitive to these fumes, and would they please try to find an alternative. They have not, they think that these fumes and the use of their products is " the way things are in the world" i.e. everybody uses it. I gave them a report how these chemical are especially toxic for their children. Putting a vent up thru their wall is costly, they say.

9/29/2011 · Injury, Seen by Medical Professional · The Procter & Gamble Company · Arizona

This product fabric softener is being used by many people in the belief that they are somehow making their clothes softer and more pleasurable smelling. When in reality they are exposing themselves and others to many chemicals that make those of us sensitive/allergic to it sick. I have suffered many symptoms from the exposure to this product, including, headches, nausea, asthma like symptoms of restricted breathing and chest congestion, inflamed sinuses. After many years of suffering with these symptoms have come to the conslusion with absolute certainty that these fabric softener products are the culprit.

9/20/2011 · Injury, Seen by Medical Professional · COLGATE PALMOLIVE CO. · Illinois

I have been exposed to what I recently found out is a fabric softening called "Suavitel", and it is giving me many medical problems. But first, the smell from this product is overwhelming and obnoxious - everybody I know with the exception of the people who use it, call it a "STENCH" rather than a "smell". The people at work who use this product can be smelled from at least 20 feet away. When I am driving my car down the street past a laundrymat, I can smell this smell inside my car with the windows rolled up. Some of the various ailments that I have had since being exposed to this toxic stench, are severe headaches, bronchial airway closing, and inability to think. Honestly, I can't believe people haven't sued P&G regarding this product yet.

9/1/2020 · Injury, Seen by Medical Professional · The Procter & Gamble Company · Georgia

The consumer stated that this is the first time that she has used Bounce product. (08/12/2020) After wearing clothes that had been dried using the dryer sheet, the consumer had an adverse reaction. She stated that there was a burning red hot itchy rash on her chest and stomach. She also was sick to her stomach and had diarrhea. The consumer had to go to her doctor, who prescribed steroids

9/1/2020 · Injury, Seen by Medical Professional · The Procter & Gamble Company · Georgia

(08/21/2020) The consumer was using the product to spray wrinkles out of her clothes. The mist from the spray got on her arms and caused a hot itchy rash. The consumer reported a rash problem previously with a Bounce product that required a doctor visit. The consumer had to go back to the doctor. A strong cream and steroids were prescribed for the rash. As stated in the previous report, the consumer had never used the Bounce brand before.

8/9/2012 · Injury, Hospital Admission · PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS (history 10/23/2012) · Pennsylvania

12/2011 The caller stated that she used the fabric freshener to spray on her bed linen. She stated that she started to have health symptoms including, headaches, dizziness, respitarory problems, etc. She was taken to the Nazareth hospital in PA by the rescue squad for a heart attack, where she was hospitalized for a week. There was no diagnostic that she had a heart attack and she was released. 2/2012 The caller had a followup visit with her cardialogist and he was unable to diagnose the problem. 6/2012 The caller was still experiencing problems. She removed her bed linen, washed them thoroughly and threw out her pillows which seemed to resolve the issue. The manufacturer was not contacted because there was no contact number. The caller feels that this fabric freshener contains chemicals which is a health hazard. UPDATE: In November 2011 after moving to this current address, I began using Power House Fabric Freshener on my bed. I have a rather unstable bladder so I was concerned about smelling up the bedroom. I sprayed a lot and often. Toward the end of December, I began waking up light headed, unsteady on my feet, short of breath, and generally out of focus. These problems worsened during January and the 'out of focus' often lasted most of the day. February 5, 2012 my breathing became very labored and the chest felt tight and heavy. I was rushed to the hospital with a possible heart attack. After a week in the hospital and many tests, no heart attack. Shortly after returning home the syptoms returned, and I returned to spraying. In mid-April, my daughter (a nurse) wondered if my problems were caused by a concentration of carbon monoxide. Possible, we'd gone through a winter, windows closed, drapes down, low ceiling. So monitors were bought, and someone to check the house. No carbon monoxide. However my daughter's words resonated with me. They only thing going on in the bedroom besides sleeping and dressing, was spra

8/4/2023 · Incident, No Injury · KROGER STORES, INC. · Ohio

My wife reported to me that our clothes dryer was no longer heating. When I investigated, I found that a fabric softener sheet had glued itself to the exhaust vent inside the drum, impeding airflow. I was able to verify with a multimeter that the thermal fuse on the heating coil had tripped. So in summary, fabric softener sheets seem to have nearly caused a fire and it was likely only prevented by the safety mechanisms of the clothes dryer.

8/28/2017 · Injury, Emergency Department Treatment Received · The Procter & Gamble Company · Oklahoma

I used Febreze Fabric Refresher, the variety called "Free/Nature," in a spray bottle to clear the odor from a smelly co-worker (!!) after he left my office. I bought it specifically because of this person, who is a smoker. I sprayed it where he had been sitting and walking, then turned on a small fan and stepped out of the office for about 5 min. Came back, turned off the fan, and went back to work at my computer. Within an hour I noticed that my face was feeling numb under my right nostril. I took some [ibuprofen] in case it was a fever blister emerging, but the numbness spread to underneath the left nostril. I tested myself for stroke and assured myself that wasn't happening. About an hour later, my entire upper lip was swollen, and I felt as if my nasal passages were becoming swollen, so I went to the emergency room (St. Anthony Healthplex North in Oklahoma City). They too evaluated me to rule out stroke, then concluded it was an allergic reaction, gave me some prednisone and a prescription for that steroid and recommended antihistamines. The Febreze is the *only* change in my use of consumer products in recent weeks, and this incident was the first time I ever used it. I can provide a photo of my lip, which was swollen 3x the normal size the morning after the exposure. The swelling and pain began to resolve after more steroids and about 24 hours after the onset of numbness and swelling.

Showing 8 of 60 reports.

Product Recalls

Search for active and past recalls related to fabric treatment products on the CPSC website.

Compare beyond Home Workshop Tools & Equipment

Nationwide peers by danger score, ER volume & hospitalization

Three PlainSafety-derived comparison paths for Fabric Treatment Products: cross-group products nearest on danger score (31/100), estimated annual ER visits (2,222/yr), and hospitalization share (1.5%). 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, Fabric Treatment Products ranks #622 of 838 scored CPSC product categories by PlainSafety danger score and #405 of 838 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume.

Frequently Asked Questions

Where does fabric treatment products rank on danger score versus ER volume?

Among 838 scored CPSC product categories, fabric treatment products ranks #622 by PlainSafety danger score (31/100) and #405 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume (2,222/yr). The two rankings come from the same NEISS extract and are not the same order.

What are the most common injuries from fabric treatment products?

The most common injury is derma/conjunct to the all parts body, accounting for approximately 6,862 injuries over 20 years.

Are injuries from fabric treatment products increasing or decreasing?

Down 28% over 5 years.

Who is most at risk for fabric treatment products injuries?

The 0-4 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 11,838 cases recorded over 20 years. Males are more frequently injured in this age group.

What happens when someone is injured by fabric treatment products?

Of all ER visits involving fabric treatment products, approximately 1.5% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (98.5%) are treated and released from the emergency department.

How can I report a safety problem with fabric treatment products?

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 Fabric Treatment Products 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.