Danger score versus ER volume
Danger score versus ER volume
According to CPSC NEISS 2005-2024, Vacuum Containers ranks #419 of 838 by danger score (35/100) at ER-volume #586 of 838 (589/yr). They are not the same ranking.
- #419
- danger rank of 838
- #586
- ER-volume rank of 838
- 35/100
- danger score
- 589/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 (35/100) across 838 scored CPSC product categories
35 Lower than most lower than 50% 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: 58/100
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) | 8 | 64th | 35% | CPSC NEISS 20-year severity index |
| Annual ER injury volume | 589 | 27th | 30% | CPSC NEISS estimated annual ER-treated injuries |
| 5-year injury trend | +23% | 83rd | 15% | CPSC NEISS 5-year % change in ER-treated injuries |
| Consumer incident reports | 66 | 77th | 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 11,787 estimated ER injuries land on the body
Body-part shares from the same CPSC NEISS injury_types extract for product code 1102. Segments sum to 11,787 - 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 Containers & Packaging 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.
Containers & Packaging danger scores
How this 35/100 score is built
The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for vacuum containers - no opinion, no editorializing:
- Injury volume 589 ER visits/yr Below median volume
- Severity (hospitalization rate) 7.9% Above median admission rate
- Fatality rate 0.00% No recorded fatalities
- 5-year trend+23%
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 vacuum containers are rising by about 23% over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2024 (1,491 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2012 (114 estimated visits). The single most common ER diagnosis is laceration to the face, accounting for approximately 898 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by internal injury to the head (797 cases). The 0-4 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 1,958 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 7.9% of ER visits involving this product end in hospital admission or transfer.
Beyond the hospital-sampled NEISS projections, this page also aggregates 66 consumer incident reports filed directly on SaferProducts.gov, plus 20 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how vacuum containers 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 | 1,173 | 785 | |
| 5-14 | 1,064 | 729 | |
| 15-24 | 621 | 621 | |
| 25-34 | 276 | 836 | |
| 35-44 | 319 | 1,149 | |
| 45-54 | 125 | 974 | |
| 55-64 | 518 | 722 | |
| 65-74 | 276 | 481 | |
| 75+ | 408 | 675 |
Most Common Injuries
| Body Part | Diagnosis | Est. Injuries |
|---|---|---|
| Face | Laceration | |
| Head | Internal Injury | |
| Upper Leg | Burn, Scald | |
| Foot | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Hand | Burn, Scald | |
| Lower Trunk | Burn, Scald | |
| Upper Trunk | Other | |
| Upper Trunk | Burn, Scald | |
| Internal | Ingestion | |
| All Parts Body | Poisoning | |
| Foot | Burn, Scald | |
| Hand | Laceration | |
| Mouth | Laceration | |
| Face | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Shoulder | Other |
Severity Breakdown
ER Visit Narratives
Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.
33 YOF SPILLED HER HALF FULL, 40 OZ *** OF BOILING WATER ON HER BILATERAL FEET WHILE ON THE FERRY. DX: BURN INVOLVING LESS THAN 10% OF BODY SURFACE.
2 MOM WAS UNRESTRAINED IN A CAR SEAT IN A MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISION AT APPROXIMATELY 15 TO 20 MPH. MOM BELIEVES PATIENT FELL FORWARD OUT OF HIS SEAT, STRIKING HIS HEAD ON A METAL ***. NO AIRBAGS PRESENT. DX: HEAD TRAUMA IN PEDIATRIC PATIENT.
62YOF DROPPED A LARGE *** ON TOE. DX: TOE CONTUSION
14YOF C/O CONTUSION OF RIGHT FOOT S/P PT STATES SHE DROPPED A 32OZ FULL METAL *** WATER BOTTLE ON HER FOOT. DX: CONTUSION OF RIGHT FOOT
59YOF,SLIPPED AN FELL WHILE VACCUUMING HIT FOOT,DX:FX BONE FOOT
13YOM C/O LACERATION OF FACE S/P PT STATES HE WAS PLAYING WITH HIS FRIENDS AND THROWING AROUND A METAL WATER BOTTLE. PT ACCIDENTALLY GOT HI IN THE FORHEAD. DX: LACERATION ABOVE LEFT EYEBROW SURROUNDED BY HEMATOMA
13YOM C/O HEAD INJURY S/P PT WAS AT SCHOOL TODAY RUNNING BACKWARDS WHEN HE FELL AND HIT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD ON A *** AND THEN THE WALL. DX: HEAD INJURY
6YOM WAS ACCIDENTALLY HIT IN FACE WITH A WATER BOTTLE. DX: RT EYEBROW LAC
74YOF INJURED BACK WHEN BENDING OVER TO PICK UP A WATER BOTTLE. DX: LUMBAR STR
34YOM HAS SMALL LACERATION TO LEFT 2ND TOE AFTER DROPPING WATER *** ON LEFT 2ND TOE. DX: PAIN OF LEFT TOE
44YOF PRESENTS WITH FOOT PAIN AFTER DROPPING HER 40 OUNCE *** CUP ON HER FOOT JUST PTA. DX: FOOT PAIN
25YOF WAS TAKING A DRINK FROM HER WATER BOTTLE WHEN THE SPRING POPPED UP AND SHE SWALLOWED IT. DX: SWALLOWED FB
Consumer Incident Reports
Reports filed by consumers on SaferProducts.gov.
My six year old daughter was playing soccer. It was a hot and sunny day so she grabbed the Takeya stainless steel water bottle that we purchased from Costco that was filled with water and ice. She screamed and dropped the bottle. She burned all of her fingertips on the water bottle. She could not use her hands for several days, and they were visible burned, and she continued to complained of pain. The outside of the stainless steel water bottle became dangerously hot in the sun. Both the manufacturer and Costco have been notified but had not responded adequately.
On Aug 1st of 2025, my toddler was drinking from the Owala Kids Insulation Stainless Steel Tumbler with Spill Resistant Flexible Straw when I noticed he was spitting up his drink. Upon inspection, I found that parts of the built-in straw had partially disintegrated. I believe some pieces may have been swallowed by my child.
For my teen daughter going away to a summer precollege program I purchased a Greens Steel brand portable coffee cup thermos--it's insulated doubled wall stainless with a lid and handle since she'd be taking her morning coffee with her... I washed the product and somehow didn't see the dull gray dot on the bottom--about 1/3" in circumference. When she got home from camp this weekend I washed the cup to put it away today and noticed the gray dot. Having heard about the [REDACTED] cups (but this dot was NOT covered, it was exposed!), I went and got my [REDACTED] tester and to my horror the thing turned the brightest beet pink. This means that for two weeks my daughter was handling and drinking out of a cup that had a lead bottom. I just emailed the company and then found your site.
I bought a new 40 0z TAL tumbler from Walmart they just dropped some of them have colored clear lids I noticed in the top under the lid in a place thats suppose to be sealed has mold it can not be cleaned
Placing four ice cubes in an Ikea insulated Behovd carafe when it exploded sending glass flying out of it.
Purchased brand new coleman [REDACTED] and when using it for the first time, my roommate and I heard and witnessed it explode shooting shattered glass all over my roommate. It was purchased two days prior at Burlington's and this was the first time to use it. I contacted coleman twice to let them know to no avail. I searched the internet and found that I am not the only person this has happened to. I have the receipt, I do not want my money back I want the public warned and to stop anyone from being injured very seriously! This is the glass packed [REDACTED] by coleman and [REDACTED]. I have photos and thank god my roommate's injuries were minor.
Additional physical injuries sustained include: lacerations to both upper and lower eyelids, severe swelling, headaches, and optic nerve damage; permanent blindness in his left eye. The adverse psychological effects are constant and ongoing, he was never depressed. Ever aspect of his life, daily routine activities, are now difficult for him. previous to this catastrophic injury the same tasks were performed with great ease; without a second thought.The injury, along with losing his sight has significantly diminished his overall quality of life. His left eye was his "good eye", his dominate eye, as he could see well from it.No reasonable person would expect to be bloodied and blinded by their favorite beverage container. Yeti products have an inherently flawed design and pose a significant hazardous threat to be seriously injured or loss of life.
101 Oz (3L) Airpot Thermal Carafe / Lever Action / Stainless Steel Thermos / 12 Hour Heat Retention / 24 Hour Cold Retention by Cresimo On Amazon has a pinch point at back of lever, very painful. Caught me and a neighbor by surprise. If you lay hand across top of handle and push down, okay, as you let up finger is pinched at pivot point.
Showing 8 of 66 reports.
Product Recalls
Search for active and past recalls related to vacuum containers on the CPSC website.
Compare beyond Containers & Packaging
Nationwide peers by danger score, ER volume & hospitalization
Three PlainSafety-derived comparison paths for Vacuum Containers: cross-group products nearest on danger score (35/100), estimated annual ER visits (589/yr), and hospitalization share (7.9%). 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 Containers & Packaging
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, Vacuum Containers ranks #419 of 838 scored CPSC product categories by PlainSafety danger score and #586 of 838 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume.
Frequently Asked Questions
Where does vacuum containers rank on danger score versus ER volume?
Among 838 scored CPSC product categories, vacuum containers ranks #419 by PlainSafety danger score (35/100) and #586 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume (589/yr). The two rankings come from the same NEISS extract and are not the same order.
What are the most common injuries from vacuum containers?
The most common injury is laceration to the face, accounting for approximately 898 injuries over 20 years.
Are injuries from vacuum containers increasing or decreasing?
Up 23% over 5 years.
Who is most at risk for vacuum containers injuries?
The 0-4 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 1,958 cases recorded over 20 years. Males are more frequently injured in this age group.
What happens when someone is injured by vacuum containers?
Of all ER visits involving vacuum containers, approximately 7.9% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (92.1%) are treated and released from the emergency department.
How can I report a safety problem with vacuum containers?
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.