Back

Aerosol Dusters as the Predominant Source of Inhalant Abuse Mortality: Evidence From the U.S. CPSC Clearinghouse, 2011 through 2021

Perron, B.; Dimit, C.

2026-03-11 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.64898/2026.03.10.26348086 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundIntentional inhalation of 1,1-difluoroethane (DFE), the propellant in aerosol duster products, is a leading cause of inhalant-abuse death in the United States. The CPSC has cited death counts from its Clearinghouse in regulatory proceedings, yet no peer-reviewed publication has described the methods used to identify these cases. ObjectivesTo estimate DFE- and duster-related deaths in the CPSC Clearinghouse for 2011-2021, characterize reporting patterns, and assess classification reliability against an independently coded dataset. MethodsDeath records (N = 6,316) were identified from 261,076 Clearinghouse records using CPSC product codes for chemicals, aerosols, gases, and related products. Each record was classified through narrative review and substance coding. Inter-rater reliability was assessed against an independently coded dataset from Families United Against Inhalant Abuse (FUAIA) using Cohens kappa and Gwets AC1. ResultsOf 2,451 inhalant-abuse deaths identified (70.8% male; mean age 36.9 years), 2,097 (85.6%) involved DFE or aerosol duster products. DFE/duster deaths rose from 110 (2011) to 266 (2016). Only 17% of cases were received in the same calendar year as the incident. Prior to reconciliation, comparison with the FUAIA dataset yielded Cohens kappa of 0.90 (95% CI [0.89, 0.91]); all discrepancies were subsequently resolved through joint review. ConclusionAerosol duster products account for approximately 86% of inhalant-abuse deaths reported to the CPSC Clearinghouse; however, these counts significantly underestimate true prevalence. The concentration of mortality in a single, widely available product class supports targeted product-level interventions and provides the first peer-reviewed baseline for evaluating the impact of regulatory and prevention efforts.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.