Contents
- Cleaning chemical workplace incidents statistics: Washington inhalation cases and rates
- Cleaning chemical workplace incidents statistics: cleaner exposure types and products
- Cleaning chemical workplace incidents statistics: asthma and worker characteristics
- Cleaning chemical workplace incidents: occupational asthma surveillance across five states
- Cleaning chemical workplace incidents: Texas poison-center exposure routes and outcomes
- Cleaning chemical workplace incidents: emergency care and work-related burns
- Sources
Cleaning chemical workplace incidents statistics: Washington inhalation cases and rates
Washington workers’ compensation records offer one view of toxic inhalation injuries involving cleaning materials. The study identified 440 cases from July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2022. Its cohort included work-related asthma and/or toxic inhalation cases with at least one cleaning-material exposure code; duplicates were removed. These are therefore cases within a defined claims cohort, not a count of every workplace incident involving cleaning chemicals in the state. Source: Washington State cleaning-chemical inhalation study
The researchers compared two consecutive 30-month periods. The pre-pandemic period, July 1, 2017, through December 31, 2019, included 243 cleaning-related toxic inhalation cases. The pandemic period, January 1, 2020, through June 30, 2022, included 197. The study reported rates of 8.9 and 7.4 injuries per 100,000 full-time equivalents (FTE), respectively. It defines 1 FTE as 500 hours per quarter. Source: Washington State cleaning-chemical inhalation study
| Washington workers’ compensation measure | Pre-pandemic: July 2017–December 2019 | Pandemic: January 2020–June 2022 |
|---|---|---|
| Cleaning-related toxic inhalation cases | 243 | 197 |
| Injury rate per 100,000 FTE | 8.9 | 7.4 |
The counts and rates describe different measures: case totals and rates adjusted to FTE. The study’s specified periods support a direct comparison, but these figures apply to its coded workers’ compensation cohort and should not be read as statewide counts of all exposures or all injuries. The source labels its periods “pre-pandemic” and “pandemic”; the dates above preserve the study’s time boundaries. Source: Washington State cleaning-chemical inhalation study
Cleaning chemical workplace incidents statistics: cleaner exposure types and products
In the Washington cases spanning July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2022, disinfectants were the most commonly reported cleaning-chemical category, appearing in 134 cases. Bleach used alone in tasks not specified as disinfecting appeared in 70 cases, while bleach mixed with other cleaning chemicals appeared in 65. The study classified bleach used with stated disinfection intent as disinfectant, so those labels reflect task coding as well as product. Source: Washington State cleaning-chemical inhalation study
Other recorded categories included cleaning chemicals “not otherwise specified,” with 81 cases, and floor cleaners, strippers, and waxes, with 27. These are reported case counts, not estimates of product use or the number of workers who handle each type. Source: Washington State cleaning-chemical inhalation study
| Cleaning-material category in Washington cases | Cases, July 2017–June 2022 |
|---|---|
| Disinfectants | 134 |
| Cleaning chemicals not otherwise specified | 81 |
| Bleach used alone, not specified as disinfecting | 70 |
| Bleach mixed with other cleaning chemicals | 65 |
| Floor cleaners, strippers, and waxes | 27 |
National emergency-department estimates add a different measure and population. For 2014–2017, the estimated number of nonfatal, work-related inhalation injuries treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments and attributed to cleaning and polishing agents or disinfectants was 7,400. That category represented 8.3% of the national estimate in the study’s Table 3. The table excluded firefighters and the category combines cleaning and polishing agents with disinfectants. Source: U.S. emergency-department inhalation injury surveillance, 2014–2017
The same table estimated 9,000 injuries attributed to chlorine and chlorine compounds, and 6,700 attributed to chlorine or chlorine bleach. These broader chemical categories are not limited to cleaning tasks. The estimates are based on injuries treated in emergency departments, so they do not represent all workplace exposures or injuries managed elsewhere. Source: U.S. emergency-department inhalation injury surveillance, 2014–2017
Cleaning chemical workplace incidents statistics: asthma and worker characteristics
Asthma diagnoses were recorded within the Washington toxic inhalation cohort. Work-related asthma was diagnosed in 27 pre-pandemic cases, or 11%; in 32 pandemic-period cases, or 16%; and in 59 cases overall, or 13%. Work-aggravated asthma was recorded separately: 21 pre-pandemic cases (9%), 29 pandemic-period cases (15%), and 50 overall (11%). The study distinguishes a work-related asthma diagnosis from asthma aggravated by work, so the two rows should not be combined. Source: Washington State cleaning-chemical inhalation study
| Asthma measure in Washington cleaning-related cases | Pre-pandemic | Pandemic | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diagnosed with work-related asthma | 27 (11%) | 32 (16%) | 59 (13%) |
| Work-aggravated asthma | 21 (9%) | 29 (15%) | 50 (11%) |
The study also reported that 250 workers were female, representing 57% of the full-period cases. Median age at injury was 38 years, with an interquartile range (IQR) of 25 years. These describe the recorded cases; they do not establish the rate of injury for any gender or age group in the workforce. Source: Washington State cleaning-chemical inhalation study
Cleaning chemical workplace incidents: occupational asthma surveillance across five states
A separate surveillance analysis identified 1,199 cleaning-product cases among 9,667 work-related asthma cases, a case share of 12.4%. It covered California, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York. The analysis period was 1998–2012, with state coverage periods differing; it also compared findings with 1993–1997. These percentages describe the composition of identified asthma cases, not the risk of asthma among all workers exposed to cleaning products. Source: Cleaning Products and Work-Related Asthma, 10 Year Update
Women accounted for 77.8% of the cleaning-product work-related asthma cases, and the average age was 43 years. By occupation, healthcare workers represented 41.1% of the cases, building cleaners 20.3%, and registered nurses 14.1%. Those occupational groups show that surveillance cases were found among both workers who clean buildings and people working in healthcare settings. They do not measure how many workers in each occupation were exposed or compare occupation-specific rates. Source: Cleaning Products and Work-Related Asthma, 10 Year Update
The Washington and five-state findings use different surveillance systems, time frames, case definitions, and populations. Washington’s figures are drawn from workers’ compensation cases coded for toxic inhalation and/or work-related asthma with cleaning-material exposure. The five-state analysis reports cleaning-product cases within a broader set of work-related asthma cases. Their percentages should be read within each study rather than treated as directly comparable prevalence estimates. Sources: Washington State cleaning-chemical inhalation study; five-state work-related asthma surveillance
Cleaning chemical workplace incidents: Texas poison-center exposure routes and outcomes
Texas poison centers recorded 4,747 occupational household-cleaner exposures and 2,201 occupational industrial-cleaner exposures from 2000 through 2014. Household cleaners accounted for almost 70% of the occupational cleaner exposures reported in the study. These are reports to poison centers, not incidence rates for the Texas workforce; they depend on exposures being reported to that system. Source: Texas poison-center cleaner exposure comparison, 2000–2014
The study described several reported exposure routes for each product group. Ocular exposure was reported in 35.5% of household-cleaner cases and 40.8% of industrial-cleaner cases. Inhalation was reported in 28.7% and 23.9%, respectively. Source: Texas poison-center cleaner exposure comparison, 2000–2014
Dermal exposure was reported in 20.1% of household-cleaner cases and 29.7% of industrial-cleaner cases. Ingestion was reported in 24.4% of household-cleaner cases and 16.3% of industrial-cleaner cases. Because route percentages may overlap, they are not mutually exclusive shares and should not be added to produce a total. Source: Texas poison-center cleaner exposure comparison, 2000–2014
| Reported route among occupational poison-center exposures | Household cleaners | Industrial cleaners |
|---|---|---|
| Ocular | 35.5% | 40.8% |
| Inhalation | 28.7% | 23.9% |
| Dermal | 20.1% | 29.7% |
| Ingestion | 24.4% | 16.3% |
Outcomes were classified as not serious for 75.2% of household-cleaner exposures and 68.4% of industrial-cleaner exposures. The study reports these outcomes among poison-center cases; this classification does not mean that every case had no symptoms or required no care. Source: Texas poison-center cleaner exposure comparison, 2000–2014
Cleaning chemical workplace incidents: emergency care and work-related burns
The Texas study also reported where patients were managed. Among household-cleaner exposure patients, 51.4% were managed on site. For industrial-cleaner exposure patients, 54.7% were already at or en route to a healthcare facility. These are separate group-specific management findings from poison-center reports, not a comparison of emergency-department treatment rates across all exposed workers. Source: Texas poison-center cleaner exposure comparison, 2000–2014
Work-related burns provide another measure of acute harm. In 2015, cleaning-product exposure caused 340 of the 1,549 reported work-related burns treated in Michigan hospitals and emergency departments. The figures count treated burns in Michigan during that year; they do not describe all cleaning-related injuries or exposures in the state. Source: Work-Related Burns Caused by Cleaning Products
Taken together, these studies describe different parts of the picture: Washington workers’ compensation cases, national emergency-department estimates, multi-state asthma surveillance, Texas poison-center reports, and Michigan treated burns. Their counts and percentages retain meaning only alongside their dates, populations, and case definitions. The evidence here supports describing those measured groups; it does not provide a single comprehensive count of workplace incidents involving cleaning chemicals.
Sources
- Occupational Toxic Inhalation Injury to Cleaning Chemicals During the COVID-19 Pandemic, Including a Case Series for Disinfectants Aerosolized Through Spray and Fog Application
- Comparison of Occupational Household and Industrial Cleaner Exposures Reported to the Texas Poison Control Network During 2000–2014
- Cleaning Products and Work-Related Asthma, 10 Year Update
- Surveillance of acute nonfatal occupational inhalation injuries treated in US hospital emergency departments, 2014–2017
- Work-Related Burns Caused by Cleaning Products