33
CPSC NEISS Data 2005–2024

Thermal Or Sound Insulation Materials

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.

Building Materials & Home Structures · CPSC Code 1803

Down 12% over 5 years

The verdict

Thermal Or Sound Insulation Materials carry a danger score of 33/100 (low risk), driven by roughly 2,417 ER-treated injuries a year that are declining by about 12% over the last five years.

33/100
danger score (low risk)
2,417
ER visits per year (avg)
2.7%
end in hospital admission
25-34
most-injured age group

Every figure is rendered from the CPSC NEISS record for product code 1803 - last data year 2024.

PlainSafety danger score

0/100100/10033/100
PlainSafety danger score

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 thermal or sound insulation materials - no opinion, no editorializing:

  • Injury volume2,417 ER visits/yr
  • Severity (hospitalization rate)2.7%
  • Fatality rate0.00%
  • 5-year trend-12%

See the full methodology for the exact weighting of each factor.

What the CPSC Data Shows

Thermal Or Sound Insulation Materials (CPSC product code 1803, in the Building Materials & Home Structures category) generate an estimated 2,417 emergency-room visits every year in the United States, adding up to roughly 48,333 ER-treated injuries across the 20-year span from 2005 to 2024. PlainSafety derives a danger score of 33/100 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 declining by about 12% over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2014 (3,381 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2020 (1,792 estimated visits).

The single most common ER diagnosis for thermal or sound insulation materials is contusions, abr. to the eyeball, accounting for approximately 7,842 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by foreign body to the eyeball (6,273 cases). The 25-34 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 9,797 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 2.7% of ER visits involving this product end in hospital admission or transfer.

Beyond the hospital-sampled NEISS projections, this page also aggregates 47 consumer incident reports filed directly on SaferProducts.gov, plus 20 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how thermal or sound insulation materials 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.

2,417
Injuries / Year
2.7%
Hospitalization Rate
0.00%
Fatality Rate

Annual Injury Estimates (2005–2024)

2K2K3K3K4K 20052008201120142017202020232024 2K
Estimated annual emergency-room visits for Thermal Or Sound Insulation Materials, CPSC NEISS

Source: CPSC NEISS national injury estimates As of 2024

Source: CPSC NEISS national estimates CPSC NEISS national estimates Injuries represent ER-treated cases only

Who Gets Injured?

Age Group Male Female Total
0-4 737 1,370 2,107
5-14 1,657 528 2,185
15-24 5,287 1,524 6,811
25-34 8,204 1,593 9,797
35-44 7,030 2,088 9,118
45-54 7,349 1,518 8,867
55-64 4,888 1,200 6,088
65-74 1,433 644 2,077
75+ 1,078 208 1,286

Most Common Injuries

Body Part Diagnosis Est. Injuries
Eyeball Contusions, Abr. 7,842
Eyeball Foreign Body 6,273
Lower Arm Derma/conjunct 2,470
Eyeball Derma/conjunct 2,383
Finger Laceration 2,086
All Parts Body Other 1,836
All Parts Body Derma/conjunct 1,417
All Parts Body Poisoning 1,202
Upper Trunk Derma/conjunct 1,174
Hand Other 988
Hand Laceration 985
Hand Derma/conjunct 967
Upper Trunk Other 962
Face Derma/conjunct 949
Internal Ingestion 898

Severity Breakdown

Treated/examined And Released 95.7% (46,237)
Treated And Admitted/hospitalized 2.3% (1,109)
Left Without Being Seen 1.3% (614)
Held For Observation 0.5% (229)
Treated And Transferred 0.3% (149)

ER Visit Narratives

Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.

Age 63 · Male · Face · Contusions, Abr. · 2024

63YOM PRESENTS AFTER WIFE BELIEVES HE WAS ACTING FUNNY AFTER WAS WORKING UNDER HIS HOUSE WITH INSULATION AND STARTED TO SCRATCH A LOT, HAS LEFT KNEE PAIN AND SCRATCHES PERIORBITALLY AND AROUND THE FACE. PATIENT STATES HE SMOKES MARIJUANA DAILY AS OFTEN AS HE CAN. ALSO HAS MOVEMENTS THAT THE PROVIDER BELIEVES COULD BE DUE TO A NEUROLOGIC ISSUE OR A DRUG-RELATED ISSUE DX: MARIJUANA USE, AKATHISIA

Age 16 · Female · Lower Arm · Derma/conjunct · 2024

16YOF TOUCHED FIBERGLASS INSULATION AT SCHOOL AND PRESENTS WITH RASH RIGHT FOREARM. DX: DERMATITIS DUE TO FIBERGLASS

Age 29 · Female · Lower Arm · Derma/conjunct · 2024

29YOF ESCAPED THE HOSPITAL INTO A CONTSTRUCTION ZONE WHERE HER ARM CAME IN CONTACT WITH SOME INSULATION RESUTLING IN A RASH. DX: IRRITANT CONTACT DERMATITIS

Age 35 · Female · Face · Derma/conjunct · 2024

35YOF RASH ON FACE WHEN GETTING FIBERGLASS ON FACE AND USING TAPE TO HELP REMOVE IT WHEN IN AN OLD HOUSEDX CONTACT DERMATITIS ADHESIVE

Age 54 · Male · All Parts Body · Poisoning · 2024

54YOM BROUGHT IN BY EMS FOR ALCOHOL INTOXICATION. PICKED UP AT HOME WITH SHORTNESS OF BREATH. STATES CAME BACK FROM ***YESTERDAY, HAD BEEN TEARING DOWN FLOOODED HOUSES AND THERE WAS ASBESTOS HE THINKS IN THE DERIS. BAC: UNK DX: SHORTNESS OF BREATH, ENCOUNTER FOR MEDICATION REFILL.

Age 55 · Male · Eyeball · Foreign Body · 2024

55YOM FROM HOME STATES THAT HE BELIEVES HE GOT FIBERGLASS IN HIS RIGHT EYE NOW PAINFUL DX: FOREIGN BODY OF RIGHT EYE

Age 8 · Female · Eyeball · Other · 2024

8YOF PRESENTS WITH BILATERAL EYE IRRITATION, BURNING AND ITCHY AFTER SHE TOUCHED SOME FIBERGLASS INSULATION DX: IRRITATION OF BOTH EYES

Age 28 · Male · Finger · Laceration · 2024

28YOM,CUTTING SOME INSULATION ACCIDENTALLY CUT TO DEEP AN INJURED FINGER,DX:FINGER LAC

Age 73 · Male · Eyeball · Contusions, Abr. · 2024

73 YOM WITH RIGHT EYE DISCOMFORT THAT STARTED YESTERDAY AFTER HE WAS WORKING WITH SOME INSULATION. HE FEELS LIKE SOMETHING MIGHT BE IN HIS EYE AND THERE MIGHT BE A BUMP THERE. NO VISION CHANGES. DX CORNEAL ABRASION

Age 29 · Male · All Parts Body · Poisoning · 2024

29YOM TO ER FOR INHALATIN INJURY THAT OCCURED WHENT PT WAS WORKING UNDER HIS HOUSE & INHALE SOME FIBERGLASS FRON INSULATION, PT WAS UNDER HOUSE FOR 1 1/2 HRS, PT HAS SORE THROAT DX INHALATION INJURY [FIBERGLASS]

Age 16 · Male · Eyeball · Foreign Body · 2024

16 YOM HELPING DAD AT HOME INSTALL INSULATION, GOT INSULATION IN EYE DX FB EYE, PT LEFT AMA

Age 49 · Female · Eyeball · Foreign Body · 2024

49YOF WAS WORKING AROUND THE HOUSE DOING SOME RENOVATIONS WHEN SHE GOT SOME INSULATION IN HER RIGHT EYE DX: FOREIGN BODY EYE

Consumer Incident Reports

Reports filed by consumers on SaferProducts.gov.

9/9/2019 · Injury, Seen by Medical Professional · HOME ENERGY MEDICS · Virginia

Home Energy Medics was hired to perform air sealing using closed-cell foam in my home. The company subcontracted to a company called The Fifth Fuel. The company was experiencing problems with the operation of their foam installation equipment while blowing in the foam which has resulted in a misapplication which has now created toxic fumes in our home due to off-gassing.

9/26/2019 · Incident, No Injury · Superior Insulation of Willaimstown Construction Inc · New York

On 04/14/16, Thermoseal 500 foam was installed in the ceiling of my attic. The outside temperature was about 35 to 40 degrees Fahrenheit. The supply lines were laid in snow for a distance of about 30'. The temperature in the attic was 45 to 50 degrees. Two boys sprayed at the same time in a 24x48 attic. The foam was installed, in a haphazard manner with no uniform thickness to a depth from 8" to 12" (est.). There was no pause between passes, just continuous spraying. During the operation one of the guns broke and big chunks of foam were sprayed in part of my attic. My wife and I and our pets were present during the install. We were told that the chemical smell would be gone in a couple of days. The smell is still here and becoming more noxious as time goes by. The odor is more apparent now because I had air conditioning installed and the windows are all closed. The foam insulation was in preparation for the AC, since we didn't want to cool the attic. After a 6K bill for foam it took time to save for the AC. My wife has an almost constant cough and my nose runs constantly.

7/28/2011 · Incident, No Injury · ECOTECH SPRAY FOAM · New York

We had our basement spray foamed by Eco Tech Spray Foam Co in January of this year. We have noticed a musty odor on some of our furnishings in the basement. The spray foam odor is still very strong in there and we are concerned about our health. In the beginning I got headaches, now, my left eye tears for no reason. Our basement never had a musty order before we had the spray foam applied. Upon the inspections of our basement that Eco Tech made, we were told that it was very clean and clear and the spray foam application would not be difficult to do. Our home is only ~ 6 years old and we keep a dehumidifier going throughout the Summer months to prevent mold and mildew build up. So that has never been a problem for us. The musty odor is on some of our furnishings in the basement. We cannot smell the musty odor in the basement because the spray foam odor is still strong no matter how many days we air the basement out. This odor will not leave and it comes up to the living area at times. When this was applied, we were instructed to leave the windows open for like a couple of days and we did that in the middle of winter. When it got warmer outside, we left the windows open for days. The spray foam odor has not left yet. I only noticed the musty odor when I went to use a table that was in the basement in April, and again this month. I didn't pay much attention to it until I looked further into the odor of the spray foam. Now I am concerned about our health and well-being as the fumes are still strong. I feel that this is not normal and it has only happened after the spray foam was applied.

7/27/2015 · Injury, Seen by Medical Professional · Demilec USA · California

I am writing saferproducts.gov to inform you of what we have learned concerning the improperly installed spray polyurethane foam (SPF). In May of 2013 Demilec APX fire rated open cell SPF was applied underneath the roof deck of my house. A Demilec Territory Manager was on site for 3 days along with the Demilec authorized installer. Due to the foul smelling odor for weeks after installation the installer acknowledged the problem. Seven weeks later the foam was removed and I collected samples for testing by Eurofins. They reported the two highest VOC’s are fire retardants: TEP CAS #78-40-0 (emission rate 89.5 µg/m²*h) and DEP CAS #78-38-6 (emission rate 4750 µg/m²*h, chamber concentration 4710 µg/m3). DEP fire retardant as reported by Eurofins was extremely high. At no time during my complaints to Demilec representatives concerning the foul odor did they instruct the construction crew or myself to vacate the house. I developed a dry hacking cough while working in the house. After removal of the SPF construction was halted and the house remains vacant, toxic, and unlivable. The Berkeley Analytical certification for Demilec APX reports emission rates of DEP 2237 µ/gm²*h and TEP 564 µ/gm²*h. In the report are “Estimated Indoor Air Concentrations (µg/m³)” for Classroom at 2152.6, Office at 1203, Residence at 5007. CREL’s have not been established for these chemicals. Protective Action Criteria (PAC) is the only protocol to determine the health effects. PAC protocol is used by first responders and health officials to determine the impacts of a one hour- once in a lifetime exposure. There are three levels of PAC value (1 to 3) where each successive value is associated with an increasingly severe effect from a higher level of exposure. Each level is defined as follows: PAC-1: Mild, transient health effects. PAC-2: Irreversible or other serious health effects that could impair the ability to take protective action. PAC-3: Life-threatening health

7/20/2022 · Injury, Level of care not known · Innovative Chemical Products (ICP) Group, LLC · Illinois

[Apologies in advance for readability - my paragraph breaks did not work in finished version] Through a State/Federal low-income Weatherization program administered by DuPage County (Illinois) Health and Human Services, I qualified for assistance in the form of HVAC & other appliance replacement, and insulation/weatherstripping of my 80-year-old home. Though the appliance replacement is not yet complete, on approximately February 7th an employee of Healthy Air Heating and Air, the contractor hired by DuPage HHS, applied spray polyurethane foam insulation from a tank mix to resident facing surfaces in my basement, and my bedroom, in such a way that it is not only unsightly and a physical obstruction to other planned work, but apparently, due to off gassing, is continually generating foul and acrid odors – which after researching I believe are likely toxic, and the source of some of the continual respiratory symptoms, and even a rash at one point, that I've developed since. In addition to the off gassing, the insulation was sprayed ONLY in resident facing areas, not behind walls. It has been installed on a variety of untreated and unprepared substrates including painted concrete, painted wood, unpainted brick, painted brick, electrical conduit, water pipes, gas lines, OVER CURTAIN RODS actually plastering them in place, on and around window frames, and even on the main electrical service box covering the outgoing lines from the circuits and splattered over the rest of it. Because no protection of adjacent areas or containment was put into place, overspray - from particles to larger pieces has also overlapped onto shelving, washer and dryer, floors, walls, and various other items. In the bedroom – which was declared off limits to any work multiple times, and in which this product should never have been sprayed, I had a floor-to-ceiling section of plaster on lathe and brick wall left as an open cut out by an electrical contractor after installing n additi

7/1/2013 · Injury, Hospital Admission · BASF CORPORATION INFORMATION SYSTEM · Pennsylvania

We hired a contractor to install 3" of closed cell polyurethane sprayfoam insulation in a retrofit attic. The application process went horribly wrong while I was in the home and we were exposed to the chemicals. We were told by the contractor and manufacturer that these chemicals are safe including to my pregnant wife. The chemical manufacture confirmed misapplication and said all the improperly installed foam had to be removed. The contractor refused to follow the manufacture guideline. We continued to live in the home for 4 years while having 2 children born into the environment . We are all suffering medical problems which have been confirmed by the medical community. We were told by numerous doctors to abandon our home and leave all of our possesions behind. We have been out of the home since April 4th, 2013.

6/4/2017 · Injury, Seen by Medical Professional · RHINO LININGS CORPORATION · Oklahoma

We are attorneys who are representing two quite elderly people, who were injured by an extremely egregious application of the foam to the entire exterior of their mobile home. It is primarily my clients' health that is our greatest concern. They were exposed to the spray while it was being sprayed on the outside of their home and they were in their home. No protection or instructions were offered to them. [REDACTED]

6/24/2019 · Injury, Seen by Medical Professional · SWD Urethane · Connecticut

I had an SWD open cell spray foam installed in my attic space in November of 2018. Immediately after the install I noticed a unpleasant smell coming into the living space below. I told the installer which was ecologic Energy Systems from Stamford CT about this problem and they dismissed it as normal. We dealt with the smell over the winter but once the warm weather came the smell increased and then started respiratory irritation. The respiratory irritation is so severe that I cannot be in the home now. The installer refuses to take responsibility and says the smell was present before the installation.

Showing 8 of 47 reports.

Product Recalls

Search for active and past recalls related to thermal or sound insulation materials on the CPSC website.

Frequently Asked Questions

How dangerous are thermal or sound insulation materials?

Based on 20 years of CPSC data, thermal or sound insulation materials have a danger score of 33/100 (low risk). An estimated 2,417 ER-treated injuries occur annually in the U.S. related to this product category.

What are the most common injuries from thermal or sound insulation materials?

The most common injury is contusions, abr. to the eyeball, accounting for approximately 7,842 injuries over 20 years.

Are injuries from thermal or sound insulation materials increasing or decreasing?

Down 12% over 5 years.

Who is most at risk for thermal or sound insulation materials injuries?

The 25-34 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 9,797 cases recorded over 20 years. Males are more frequently injured in this age group.

What happens when someone is injured by thermal or sound insulation materials?

Of all ER visits involving thermal or sound insulation materials, approximately 2.7% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (97.3%) are treated and released from the emergency department.

How can I report a safety problem with thermal or sound insulation materials?

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.

Safety Guides

What this means for you

Treat the 33/100 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 25-34 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.