Personal Protection Devices
Twenty years of CPSC NEISS emergency-room records for this consumer product category, combined with demographic breakdowns, multi-year injury trends, and matching recall notices.
Personal Care & Safety Products · CPSC Code 1619
Up 30% over 5 years
The verdict
Personal Protection Devices carry a danger score of 38/100 (low risk), driven by roughly 3,526 ER-treated injuries a year that are rising by about 30% over the last five years.
- 38/100
- danger score (low risk)
- 3,526
- ER visits per year (avg)
- 4.6%
- end in hospital admission
- 15-24
- most-injured age group
Every figure is rendered from the CPSC NEISS record for product code 1619 - last data year 2024.
PlainSafety danger score
How this 38/100 score is built
The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for personal protection devices - no opinion, no editorializing:
- Injury volume3,526 ER visits/yr
- Severity (hospitalization rate)4.6%
- Fatality rate0.00%
- 5-year trend+30%
See the full methodology for the exact weighting of each factor.
What the CPSC Data Shows
Personal Protection Devices (CPSC product code 1619, in the Personal Care & Safety Products category) generate an estimated 3,526 emergency-room visits every year in the United States, adding up to roughly 70,511 ER-treated injuries across the 20-year span from 2005 to 2024. PlainSafety derives a danger score of 38/100 for this category (low risk), combining raw injury volume, demographic reach, severity of outcome, and multi-year trend. The five-year trajectory shows that injury counts are rising by about 30% over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2024 (5,929 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2010 (1,797 estimated visits).
The single most common ER diagnosis for personal protection devices is poisoning to the all parts body, accounting for approximately 19,996 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by derma/conjunct to the eyeball (8,258 cases). The 15-24 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 17,038 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 4.6% of ER visits involving this product end in hospital admission or transfer.
Beyond the hospital-sampled NEISS projections, this page also aggregates 8 consumer incident reports filed directly on SaferProducts.gov, plus 20 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how personal protection devices 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 CPSC NEISS national estimates Injuries represent ER-treated cases only
Who Gets Injured?
| Age Group | Male | Female | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0-4 | 4,232 | 2,044 | |
| 5-14 | 6,500 | 6,120 | |
| 15-24 | 10,136 | 6,902 | |
| 25-34 | 10,501 | 3,554 | |
| 35-44 | 6,873 | 2,368 | |
| 45-54 | 4,528 | 1,937 | |
| 55-64 | 1,798 | 1,351 | |
| 65-74 | 461 | 355 | |
| 75+ | 141 | 629 |
Most Common Injuries
| Body Part | Diagnosis | Est. Injuries |
|---|---|---|
| All Parts Body | Poisoning | |
| Eyeball | Derma/conjunct | |
| Eyeball | Other | |
| Eyeball | Burn, Chemical | |
| Face | Other | |
| Face | Burn, Chemical | |
| Eyeball | Contusions, Abr. | |
| All Parts Body | Other | |
| Not Stated/unk | Other | |
| Face | Derma/conjunct | |
| Upper Trunk | Other | |
| Head | Internal Injury | |
| All Parts Body | Electric Shock | |
| Face | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Hand | Other |
Severity Breakdown
ER Visit Narratives
Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.
56YOF WAS EXPOSED TO PEPPER SPRAY ON SCHOOL BUS HAS SHORTNESS OF BREATH. DX: ACUTE BRONCHITIS.
14YOF PT WAS EXPOSED TO PEPPER SPRAY WHILE ON A BUS GOING TO A SCHOOL FUNCTION. DX: BRONCHITIS ACUTE, CHEMICAL
24 YOM HERE VIA EMS FROM A LOCAL PRISON, REPORTED THAT HE SMOKED K2 SPICE PTA. BECAME AGRESSIVE AND WRESTLED TO THE GROUND AND PEPPERED SPRAYED. DX: USE OF SYNTHETIC MARIJUANA/ EYE REDNESS BILATERAL.
80 YOF ACCIDENTALLY SPRAYED PEPPER SRAY IN EYE DX CONJUNCTIVITIS EYE
29YOF PRESENTS AFTER SHE ACCIDENTALLY *** HERSELF IN THE RIGHT HAND DX: *** INJURY
59 YOM WAS SPRAYED WITH *** IN THE EYES WITHIN THE LAST HOUR. DX: NO DX, LEFT WITHOUT BEING SEEN.
32 YOM SAYS HE WAS PEPPER SPRAYED BY SOMEONE WHO THOUGHT IT WAS FUNNY, BUT HE CANNOT OR WILL NOT REPORT EXACTLY WHEN THIS OCCURRED OR GIVE ANY OTHER DETAILS. DX: ACUTE COUGH.
26 YOM GOT PEPPER SPRAYED TODAY, UNCLEAR CIRCUMSTANCES. DX: ALTERED MENTAL STATUS.
9 YOM HAS BEEN HAVING INTERMITTENT SHORTNESS OF BREATH. DAD STATES THIS ALL STARTED WHEN HE WAS EXPOSED TO PEPPER SPRAY WHICH ANOTHER CHILD BROUGHT ONTO THE BUS. DX SHORTNESS OF BREATH, EXERCISE INDUCED ASTHMA EXACERBATION
34 YOF USED METHAMPHETAMINE AND HEARD SOME VOICES OR A PERCEIVED ALTERCATION. SHE RAN OUT INTO THE STREET AND WAS ***D BY SOMEONE. SHE THEN HIT THE SIDE OF HER HEAD ON A CAR DOOR. DX: LACERATION OF SCALP, INJURY OF HEAD, METHAMPHETAMINE USE DISORDER.
46 YOM WAS FOUND SQUATTING IN A *** CONTAINER WHERE THE GENERAL AREA WAS PEPPER SPRAYED BY THE OWNER. PEPPER SPRAY WAS NOT AIMED AT ANYONE IN PARTICULAR. DX: POISONING BY PEPPER SPRAY ACCIDENTAL.
36 YOM STATES HE WAS ***D BY A CIVILIAN BEFORE THE POLICE WERE CALLED. BREATH ALCOHOL WAS ELEVATED OVER 300 AT JAIL. DX: ALCOHOL INTOXICATION, INJURY FROM ELECTRIC SHOCK GUN
Consumer Incident Reports
Reports filed by consumers on SaferProducts.gov.
Consumer stated that she accidentally sprayed some of the contents from the pepper spray and it caused her throat to close up, she went to the [redacted] and was released, she was advised that the product was suppose to react in that manner, she eventually recuperated that day but suffered aftereffects, adverse health problems. Consumer added: After incident I am experiencing memory loss and I have coughing spells now and throat problems and headaches. I was scared to death almost when my throat closed up. 8/21/11 Consumer stated that she returned the product to the store. Consumer feels that this product's potency is enough to kill wild beasts, seniors should not purchase. Is not clear on instructions re: how to use it. It is unsafe and should not be sold.
I had bought a Best Buy Great Call Medical 911 device called the Lively alert, they said it was water proof, had GPS, had Fall Detection, had 24-7 help etc. It was all a lie and false the device does NOT work and they now admit it that the device is now on recall as the device is defective and does not work for anything. It is defective and they knew it for several months but did NOT want the share holders or investors and the Board to know until after the annual meeting. As a 100% Disabled Veteran i relied on their device for 911, Medical emergency and more it did not ever work I called several times only to be told we are looking into it, finally a honest person admitted the device was and is a fraud it never worked and thus if I return it without filing a complaint they would give me a free[REDACTED] device, and $1500.00 and Gift Cards for their parent company Best Buy for what ever i wanted. I will not par take in the corruption and dishonest of these companies
I am writing about the safety of a Wilson Sporting Goods adult size, triple density, NFL, mouth guard, patent Number 6.932.088, model number WTFMG 2006. The problem involved is the materials used in the manufacture of the mouth guard. I purchased one of the mouth guards on the advise of my dentist to compensate for my problem with TMJ. The guard was black in color and described as above. I started using the product for about a month almost every night for about 7-8 hours at a time. After using it for roughly one month, I had a very unusual occurrence happen to me that I had never have happen to me before. The occurrence was a hallucenogenic nightmare that resulted in very vivid images that resulted in my taking what I can only describe as defensive action against figures that were in bed with me. During this action I ended up out of bed and was injured when I fell to the floor. This kind of event had never happened to me before and I was shocked by what had happened. I could not understand why all of a sudden I had such a dream. I did not connect my using the mouth guard every night until I had another similar dream several days later. Once I had the second dream I concluded that my dreams must have something to do with the use of the mouth guard. Using it was the only thing that I was doing different in my routine. Once I tied the use of the guard to my dreams, I stopped using it. Here is what I think is happening. I believe the plastic which is colored with Azo Dyes is out gassing the dyes and have affected my brain in a negative way. I know that Azo dyes are known to be harmful to neurons, and certainly harmful to brain function. Therefore, I believe that Wilson is causing great harm to users of their colored plastic mouth guards. One of the reasons why I think the Wilson mouth guard was the source o my dreams is the fact that I did not have more after I stopped using the guard. Another is that after a month without using a guard, I
The consumer was charging her flash light zapper for approximately four to five hours. When the consumer unplugged the unit, she pressed the white button to see if the flash light feature was working and it was. When the consumer tried the zapper by pressing the red button, it would not work. The consumer plugged the unit back to charge for thirty minutes, and this time it zapped her right hand when she pressed the red button as opposed to zapping from the other end. The consumer states that she has pressed the red button before while the unit was charging however it never harmed her. The consumer indicates that she has tried the unit approximately ten times since she has had it to make sure it still had power. The consumer states the flash light zapper was a gift from her daughter from 11/15/2015. The consumer plans on keeping the unit for at least the next thirty days in case an investigation.
I wore these gloves to protect my hands while using chemical paint stripper. After approximately 2 minutes of working with the solution, my hands began to feel warm. I thought it was the heat released from a chemical reaction, so I continued. After another 10 minutes the warm feeling had turned to pain, and as I attempted to pull the gloves off, the fingers came off. My hands had been exposed the entire time, and the burning was from the chemical.
Two Projectiles from my BYRNA Pepper Spray Launcher somehow broke open while loaded into the accompanying Magazine and spread the contents (Pepper Spray material) all over the Handgun, the holster it was housed in and the side door compartment of my truck. At a Stoplight just before arriving at my destination I removed the gun from the side door and set it on top of the Center Console so that I would not forget and leave the gun in my truck. I have a Concealed Carry Permit. After setting the gun down on the console I rubbed my upper right eyebrow to scratch an itch and immediately I was blinded by the Pepper Spray residue that I had apparently touched when moving the gun. I was able to make the right turn at the light and pull over and from my military experience I knew immediately what the issue was and began flushing my eyes with Potable Water. It took approx 10 minutes to get my vision back and stop the very painful burning sensation coming from the Pepper Spray residue.
On 11/18/2013 I bought an EXPANDABLE IMPACT POLICE BATON 26" OVERALL from this company. Upon receiving it the second time I slung it open the end piece shot out of the end like a gun and went into a suit case that was in front of me. Fearing if that would have been one of my grandchildren it may have severely injured them. I call the company right away and advised them of the defect. I insisted a manager assure me that Manufacturer (in China) would be notified of the defect. It turned out they just put a sale supervisor on the phone. They apologized, assured me it was isolated and wanted to send me another one. They did on 11/22/2013; the first time I threw it out the end came out of it just like the other one. I contacted the company again and asked if they even saw the products or if they came straight from China. They assured me they have a warehouse in Moultrie, Ga. and that they did another sampling check of the product and on the pallet they had, all the Batons worked correctly. I don't buy it. I did send both of them back and they did refund my money, but not the shipping as they promised. I'll be glad to order another one if needed for evidence, but someone is going to get seriously hurt, if not killed if this is slung out facing a person. This weapon needs to be recalled before someone dies. Maybe someone's little child.
I purchased a stun baton from Smart Stun on January 19, 2012. The top of the baton has two stun electrodes and the base of the baton has two standard charging prongs. The problem is with the charging prongs. They push out of the baton when youre ready to charge the unit. When I unplugged the unit from the wall I received an electricle shock from the charging prongs. Once again I did not receive a shock from the discharge electrodes but from the charging prongs. This could pose a potential fire hazard.
Product Recalls
Search for active and past recalls related to personal protection devices on the CPSC website.
Frequently Asked Questions
How dangerous are personal protection devices?
Based on 20 years of CPSC data, personal protection devices have a danger score of 38/100 (low risk). An estimated 3,526 ER-treated injuries occur annually in the U.S. related to this product category.
What are the most common injuries from personal protection devices?
The most common injury is poisoning to the all parts body, accounting for approximately 19,996 injuries over 20 years.
Are injuries from personal protection devices increasing or decreasing?
Up 30% over 5 years.
Who is most at risk for personal protection devices injuries?
The 15-24 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 17,038 cases recorded over 20 years. Males are more frequently injured in this age group.
What happens when someone is injured by personal protection devices?
Of all ER visits involving personal protection devices, approximately 4.6% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (95.4%) are treated and released from the emergency department.
How can I report a safety problem with personal protection devices?
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.
Related Products in Personal Care & Safety Products
Safety Guides
What this means for you
Treat the 38/100 score as relative risk between products, not your personal odds of injury.
- See where this category ranks against every other tracked product. Full rankings
- Injuries cluster in the 15-24 age group, take extra care if that describes your household.
- Check for active recalls on this product before you assume it is safe. CPSC recalls
NEISS estimates ER-treated injuries from a national probability sample of hospitals; they do not capture injuries treated elsewhere or not treated at all.
Data: CPSC National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) 2005–2024 and SaferProducts.gov consumer incident reports. Injury estimates are based on a nationally representative probability sample of U.S. hospital emergency departments. This page is for informational purposes only and is not affiliated with the CPSC.
Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, scored, and verified.