This comparison covers 3 official alert references, including party air horn - traba powietrzna, gas signal horn - party air horn, gas signal horn - party air horn / gas-powered hooter, published from 2008-07-18 to 2009-05-29. The recorded risks raise separate evidence questions about ignition/materials. Compare the product features and dated findings below before scoping an investigation. These historical observations do not determine your product’s compliance or a market failure rate.
Evidence retrieved 2026-10-07. Source versions and topic-specific limits are listed below.
Dated official observations
Compare the product features and reported failure mechanism
The source wording below describes the reported case at that time. Read each complete report before using it in an investigation.
Party Air Horn - Traba Powietrzna · 0690/09
Report published 2009-05-29 · notifying country Germany · reported origin The Netherlands
Reported product description
A party hooter consisting of a pressurised gas canister filled with a flammable propellant gas and a red plastic horn. The canister carries various warnings and instructions in Polish only. The packaging consists of transparent foil with instructions also in Polish only. [1]
Reported risk explanation
The product poses a risk of burns because the aerosol canister contains highly inflammable gas. Escaping gas may be easily and spontaneously ignited by an ignition source. [1]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal from the market ordered by the authorities. Date of entry into force: Unknown [1]
Report published 2008-12-05 · notifying country Germany · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
A party hooter consisting of a pressurised gas canister and a red plastic horn measuring 14.5 cm in length. The gas canister is approximately 13 cm long with a diameter of approximately 5 cm, and is filled with a highly flammable propellant gas. The canister carries various warnings concerning small parts, chemicals and risk of explosion. The packaging consists of transparent foil with a sticker bearing a CE mark and a symbol indicating that the product is unsuitable for children under 3 years of age. There is also a warning in German and English about the risk of choking; the Article No and EAN Code are indicated. [2]
Reported risk explanation
The product poses a risk of: - fire because the hooter is powered by a highly flammable propellant; - damage to hearing because the sound level is higher than the maximum limit of 115 dB (C) for C-frequency peak sound pressure, causing a risk of irreversible damage to hearing, possibly even if the hooter is used only once. The product does not comply with the relevant European standard EN 71. [2]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator to whom the measure(s) were ordered: OtherCategory of measure(s): Sales ban and information to consumers ordered by the authorities.Date of entry into force: Unknown [2]
Gas signal horn - Party Air Horn / Gas-powered hooter · 0774/08
Report published 2008-07-18 · notifying country Germany · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
A "Party Air Horn" (hooter) consisting of a pressurised-gas canister and a red plastic horn measuring 14.5 cm in length. The gas canister is approx. 13 cm long with a diameter of approx. 5 cm. The canister carries various warnings concerning small parts, chemicals and risk of explosion. The packaging consists of clear foil with a sticker bearing the CE mark and a symbol indicating that the product is unsuitable for children under 3 years of age. [3]
Reported risk explanation
The product poses a risk of:- damage to hearing because the sound pressure is 140 dB and thereby exceeds the maximum value of 115 dB.- fire because the hooter is powered by a highly flammable propellant.The product does not comply with the European standard EN 71. [3]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): OtherCategory of measure(s): Voluntary withdrawal from the market.Date of entry into force: Unknown [3]
3 distinct official alert references, published between 2008-07-18 and 2009-05-29. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.
Report year
Recorded alerts
2008
2
2009
1
Recorded risk labels within this evidence task
Label combinations are source facts within one comparison; they do not create separate guides with identical preparation tasks.
Burns: 1 recorded references
Damage to hearing, Fire: 2 recorded references
Source selection, exclusions and calculation method
Filter the acquired, completely parsed English weekly XML releases. Deduplicate official alert references. Group by product category and the complete set of conditional evidence-question topics supported by actual risk text. Risk-label combinations remain recorded cohort facets and do not create buyer intents. Brand, product name, model, origin, notifying country, measurement-only changes and different wording of the same questions do not create intents. Unrecognized mechanisms stay internal for enrichment. Count report years and notifying countries deterministically. Display at most eight newest descriptions with at least 40 characters after whitespace normalization, nonempty reported measures and distinct casefolded descriptions; break date ties by official identifier. All cohort records count even if their description is shorter or not displayed. This is not a representative sample. Counts concern this acquired corpus only.
One acquired version per official public alert reference. Display at most eight newest distinct product descriptions whose normalized whitespace-collapsed text contains at least 40 characters and has nonempty reported measures; ties sort by official identifier. The complete cohort includes shorter descriptions. This is an explicit display selection, not a representative sample.
3 distinct descriptions displayed; 0 cohort records not displayed. Missing fields: {}.
These are selected, dated enforcement observations in the acquired weekly reports, not a random market sample, market-wide failure rate, proof of current product status, or a determination about your product. Notification country is not a complete sales-market or jurisdiction-coverage field. A quoted legal/standard reference is the report’s statement, not independently verified current law or a mandatory test panel.
Calculation safety-gate-evidence-comparison-10; units recorded alerts; no incidence denominator.
Turn the reported failure mechanism into a scoped investigation
Use this checklist to gather your business or product details before speaking with a specialist. The items below explain what to record and suggest useful supporting documents. You can add your own answers in the editable project brief.
Material, ignition and use context — what evidence do we have?
Identify the relevant material/component and exposure to the reported ignition mechanism. Document product configuration and intended use before agreeing justified methods and criteria. The recorded fire concern does not select a complete mandatory test panel.
Can we trace the affected component, formula or design revision across our supplied products?
Compare the reported descriptions with your own identifiers and change records. Treat missing or “Unknown” source fields as unresolved; they do not establish that no action was needed.
Useful evidence: Product identifiers, revision history, supplier/batch traceability and market/operator records.
Who would own an evidence review and any resulting corrective-action decision?
Read the reported measures as historical observations. Establish your own operator roles, sector-specific rules, decision owner and communication responsibilities before adopting another case’s response.
Conditional: Product-risk evidence and operator-role review — Compare the recorded product features and failure mechanism with your product. Confirm the applicable product regime, deciding evidence, operator responsibilities and justified next steps. This does not assume that GPSR or a representative appointment applies to every alert category.
Questions for providers
Which specific product features and reported risk mechanism make these cases relevant or irrelevant to our product?
What current legal, standards or scientific sources support your proposed investigation criteria, and what cannot be concluded from these dated alerts?
Which existing evidence can answer the risk question, what additional work is justified, and who owns any resulting corrective-action decision?
Sources and data dates
Read the official document in context. The audit details identify the precise locators and preserved versions used for this page.
