Protective equipment: chemical treatments — reported risk evidence
The acquired cohort contains 4 official alert references published from 2009-01-30 to 2016-01-22. This page compares 3 selected, distinct product descriptions, including work shoes, helmet for equestrian activities. The other 1 records still contribute to the cohort counts but are not displayed: descriptions may repeat, lack the display inputs, or fall outside the eight-description display limit. The recorded risks raise separate evidence questions about chemical treatments. 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.
Work shoes · A12/0051/16
Report published 2016-01-22 · notifying country Czechia · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Grey suede leather shoes without steel toe cap, with perforation holes and a reflective strip. [1]
Reported risk explanation
null Parts of the shoes which are in contact with the skin contain Dimethylfumarate (DMF) (measured value: 51,22 mg/kg). Dimethylfumarate is a substance which is strongly sensitising when in contact with the skin and can cause dermatitis.Consumer products containing dimethylfumarate are banned according to the REACH Regulation. [1]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): ImporterCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: UnknownType of economic operator taking notified measure(s): ImporterCategory of measure(s): Warning consumers of the risksDate of entry into force: Unknown [1]
Report published 2016-01-22 · notifying country Czechia · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Leather shoes with steel toe caps and with perforation holes. [2]
Reported risk explanation
null Parts of the shoes which are in contact with the skin contain Dimethylfumarate (DMF) (measured value: 2,87 mg/kg). Dimethylfumarate is a substance which is strongly sensitising when in contact with the skin and can cause dermatitis.Consumer products containing dimethylfumarate are banned according to the REACH Regulation. [2]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): ImporterCategory of measure(s): Withdrawal of the product from the marketDate of entry into force: UnknownType of economic operator taking notified measure(s): ImporterCategory of measure(s): Warning consumers of the risksDate of entry into force: Unknown [2]
Report published 2009-01-30 · notifying country Sweden · reported origin People's Republic of China
Reported product description
Black helmet with a silver stripe on the front. The helmet is for equestrian activities and is made of microfiber. The cardboard box is marked with Horse Pro and CE EN 1384. There is a sachet in the helmet with the text: Silica gel “Do not eat” Throw away Desiccant. [3]
Reported risk explanation
The products pose a chemical risk and can cause skin irritation due to the presence of dimethylfumarate (DMF). The dimethylfumarate contained in a sachet may be allergenic depending on the speed of release or the quantity released from the sachet, The content in the sachet were analysed and found to contain > 80% dimethyl fumarate. [3]
Reported measures, verbatim
Type of economic operator taking notified measure(s): OtherCategory of measure(s): Voluntary stop of sales by the manufacturer.Date of entry into force: Unknown [3]
4 distinct official alert references, published between 2009-01-30 and 2016-01-22. Counts describe the acquired reports, with no market denominator.
Report year
Recorded alerts
2009
1
2012
1
2016
2
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.
Chemical: 4 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; 1 cohort records not displayed. Missing fields: {'measures': 1}.
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.
Chemical treatment, sachets and exposure context — what evidence do we have?
Identify the treatment or sachet substance, its location and supplier/batch records. Trace potential transfer to the product and actual contact/exposure conditions. An anti-mould purpose does not establish microbial contamination or justify a preservative test; verify the reported chemical identity and current applicable conditions separately.
Useful evidence: Treatment/sachet identity and composition, supplier/batch records, material/contact configuration, relevant chemical sampling/results and current exposure/applicability review.
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.
