CPSC Reports Injuries in Clorox Puerto Rico Cleaner Recall
The agency now reports injuries linked to recalled Mistolin and Lestoil cleaners sold in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 3, 2026, 10:50 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 3, 2026, 10:50 a.m. ETFirst report
Clorox Puerto Rico Recalls 6 Million Scented Cleaners Over Bacteria Risk
On September 3, 2026, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a recall of about 6.3 million scented Mistolin® Dilutable Cleaners and Lestoil® Heavy Duty Multi-Purpose Cleaners sold in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The recall notice states that the products may contain bacteria, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which can cause serious infections in people with weakened immune systems or external medical devices. No injuries have been reported.
The recall includes scented Mistolin cleaners in scents such as Alegra tu Día, Espíritu Play, Flores de Primavera, Fresco Despertar, Frescura de Lavanda, Frescura Tropical, Manzana y Canela, Pino y Especias, and Sólo para Ti, and scented Lestoil cleaners in Energía del Yunque, Fuerza de Lavanda Tropical, Intenso Limon Boricua, and Olas de Rincón scents. Only products with date codes beginning with the prefix “PR01” followed by a five-digit number between 25091 and 26168 are affected, representing products produced between April 1, 2025 and June 17, 2026. The cleaners were sold in 28, 40, 64, and 128 fluid ounce bottles.
Consumers are urged to stop using the recalled products immediately. They should register at https://mistolinrecall.expertinquiry.com/ and submit pictures of the UPC code and date code. After registration, they should dispose of the product in its container with household trash. Those with affected products will receive a full refund of the purchase price (with receipt) or the manufacturer's suggested retail price (without receipt). The recall number is 26741.
The CPSC database records no other enforcement action by this firm.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 13 Sept 2026, 14:50current
First published.
- Version 13 Sept 2026, 14:53current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.