The New Era of Cut-Resistant Gloves
Subtitle: The EN 388:2016 Standard, a Necessary Update
Selecting the right protective equipment is a fundamental decision that involves multiple factors: resistance, comfort, materials, occupational hazards and, crucially, current regulations and their evolution.
It's not a simple decision, especially when the regulations haven't been clear or, worse, have become outdated. For manufacturers, standards developers, and safety specialists, it's a continuous evolution.
In this article we will address the evolution of cut tests on safety gloves to ensure a homogeneous and, above all, realistic standard for hand protection.
1. The Obsolete Standard: Why Did EN 388:2003 Fail?
For years, the European standard EN 388:2003 was the main reference. This standard exclusively used the "Coup Test" (a rotating circular blade test) to measure the cut resistance of gloves.
This method uses a circular blade that moves back and forth across the material with a fixed force of 500 grams. The result (Level 1-5) was measured by how many cycles it took the blade to cut.
The Ruling:
With the advent of modern yarn technology (ultra-high strength fibers such as Kevlar®, Dyneema®, HPPE, steel fiber, Coreshield®, etc.), this testing method began to fail.
The new fibers were so tough that the circular blade dulled during testing , sometimes even before cutting the material. This resulted in inconsistent and dangerously inflated results. A professional could select a glove marked "Level 5" even though it might not offer maximum protection against an actual cut in the field.
2. Industry Correction: ANSI, TDM-100 and ISO 13997
Ironically, it was the American standard ANSI/ISEA 105 that first recognized this problem and adopted a more accurate testing method: the TDM-100 .
Unlike the Coup Test, the TDM-100 test measures the actual force (in Newtons) required to cut a material using a straight blade in a single motion.
The purpose of this blog is not to focus on the ANSI standard, but its adoption of a more reliable method forced the global industry to react.
In 2016, Europe updated its standard to EN 388:2016 . In this new version, it was formally acknowledged that the Coup Test had shortcomings for modern materials and the same TDM-100 test was adopted, called ISO 13997 .
Therefore, gloves tested under the European standard can now show two different cut resistance results. One, still using the circular cut test, and the new one, using Newtons. The difference is more clearly explained in the new pictograms.
3. The Solution: How to Read Standard EN 388:2016 Today
The 2016 update includes two cut tests, and the method used depends on the glove material:
1. The "Coup Test" (Inherited Method)
- How it works: It's the same circular blade test.
- When to use: It is still only used for materials with low cutting resistance that do not dull the blade (such as rawhide, leather, or simple fabrics).
- Marking: It is reported as a number from 1 to 5 (it is the second digit in the pictogram).
2. The "TDM-100" or ISO 13997 (The New Gold Standard)
This is the most important update and the one you should look for when choosing high-protection gloves.
- How it works: It uses the TDM-100 machine with a straight blade that makes a single 20 mm cut. It measures the exact force in Newtons (N) needed to cut the material.
-
Why it's better:
- It better simulates a real cut (an edge against the material).
- The blade is changed after each cut, eliminating the problem of dulling.
- Measure the actual force, not the "cycles".
- Marking: It is reported with a letter from A to F (it is the fifth character in the pictogram).
4. Table of Cut Levels (ISO 13997)
When you see a letter from A to F on your glove, here's what it means. It shows the exact force in Newtons (N) that the glove was able to withstand.
| Cut Level (ISO 13997) | Required Force (Newtons) | Required Strength (Grams) | Level of Protection |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level A | ≥ 2 N | ≥ 200 g | Low |
| Level B | ≥ 5 N | ≥ 500 g | Low-Medium |
| Level C | ≥ 10 N | ≥ 1000 g | Half |
| Level D | ≥ 15 N | ≥ 1500 g | High |
| Level E | ≥ 22 N | ≥ 2200 g | Very High |
| Level F | ≥ 30 N | ≥ 3000 g | Maximum |
5. The Practical "Insight": How to Read the Marking on the Glove
With this information, you can now decode the label. When checking a glove according to EN 388:2016, look for the hammer pictogram (which indicates mechanical risks).
Below that pictogram, you will see a series of 5 or 6 characters. For example: 4X42E
- 4 = Abrasion Resistance (Level 1-4)
- X = Shear Strength (Coup Test). The "X" is your first indication of a high-performing material. It means that the Coup Test did not apply (usually because the material dulled the blade) and therefore the TDM-100 test should have been used.
- 4 = Tear Resistance (Level 1-4)
- 2 = Puncture Resistance (Level 1-4)
- E = TDM Cut Resistance (ISO 13997) . This is the fundamental data. Consulting our table, a Level "E" means that the glove withstood at least 22 Newtons of force.
This fifth character (the letter AF) is its new "gold standard." It is objective proof that the glove was measured using the most accurate and relevant method available under the standard.
6. Recommendations for the Security Specialist
As a specialist, your technical knowledge of the EN 388:2016 standard is your best tool. It allows you to make decisions based on objective data, not on assumptions or outdated standards.
Below are some strategies you can implement to strengthen your hand protection program:
1. Promote Technical Dialogue (Newtons vs. Levels)
A key recommendation is to start talking in terms of Newtons of force, rather than just "Levels." This elevates the technical conversation. Asking for "a glove that withstands 15 Newtons (Level D)" is much more precise than asking for a "Level 5" (of the Coup Test) and eliminates ambiguity.
2. Use the Global Standard as a Diagnostic Tool
The EN 388:2016 standard is a global best practice and serves as an excellent risk audit tool. It allows for comparative analysis:
- What gloves are used today? (Probably tested with the Coup Test).
- What proven alternative to TDM-100 exists for that risk?
When presenting this information, the decision to change is based on a "documented and measurable risk reduction" .
3. Propose an Internal Data-Based Standard
Relying on a documented risk analysis strengthens the position of the entire security department. For example, an analysis might conclude:
"Based on international best practice (EN 388:2016), and given that the materials we cut on Line 3 exceed 10 Newtons of force, our minimum internal safety standard for this task will be Level C (10 N)."
7. The Real Context: Why Adopt a Global Standard?
It is a well-known fact among safety professionals that international standards, such as EN 388:2016, do not always have a legal basis for mandatory adoption in our countries.
However, in this blog we suggest that these standards be used within organizations, not as a replacement for the local standard, but as a tool to raise the level of security .
Far from being extra work, adopting a proven international standard represents a smart business decision that generates tangible value.
1. They save time and adopt proven knowledge
International standards are the result of immense work. Organizations such as OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) in the United States or the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) document incidents, collect data, and analyze risks on a large scale.
Standards are created to address these real risks. Adopting these standards saves your organization invaluable time, as it implements solutions already supported by data and a validated technical framework. It utilizes products that have already undergone this rigorous evaluation process.
2. They enable specific decisions and efficient purchasing.
The standards are based on independent laboratory testing, and the data table we've shared is a perfect example. Use it to generate your applications based on any internal safety studies you require.
Sending a purchase order for "a cut-resistant glove" is not the same as requesting "a Level C Cut (ISO 13997) glove with a waterproof nitrile palm, HexArmor Model 3022".
This specificity radically simplifies the purchasing department's operations. Furthermore, by basing it on the pictograms of EN 388:2016, you create a level playing field that allows for objective comparison of similar materials from other brands that meet the same performance standards.
3. They offer better profitability (cost-benefit ratio)
As we saw, gloves tested under current standards (using the TDM-100) tend to be more resistant and durable. A glove designed with modern technology to withstand 15 Newtons (Level D) will likely have a much longer lifespan than a generic glove. Greater durability translates directly into lower consumption and, therefore, better long-term cost-benefit.
4. They establish an Internal Safety Standard (Homologation)
By adopting an international standard, you establish a clear and consistent internal security policy for your department. We recommend sharing this standard with your team so that everyone in the organization operates under the same expectations of protection.
We are confident that by adopting a robust international standard, you will directly be meeting and exceeding the requirements of local standards, which tend to be more relaxed.
Conclusion: A Final Warning. Beware of Scams.
We have already established the vital importance of an international standard like EN 388:2016. However, a standard is only useful if it is applied and verified. This is where we must address a fundamental point: the risks in unregulated markets.
The Origin of the Risk
Testing according to the EN 388:2016 standard is mandatory for safety gloves within the European market. This means they undergo rigorous verification before being allowed to enter and be sold there.
Unfortunately, this isn't the case for markets like ours in Mexico. Much of the glove production we see marked with these standards comes from Asian countries. The problem is that these gloves aren't tested in the European market , and Mexico doesn't require validation of this international marking for their import.
Fraud: The Direct Result
This leads us to a scenario of fraud. We find distributors, or those who claim to be manufacturers simply by adding their own private label , printing these pictograms on their products as if they were conclusive proof. This is not necessarily the case.
As a security specialist, it is essential that you verify the authenticity of the protection you are purchasing.
Final Recommendations: Verify, Don't Assume
We encourage you to actively verify that the gloves purchased within your organization live up to their claims.
- Check the Physical Marking: This is the most basic thing, yet it's often overlooked. The updated pictograms (EN 388:2016) must be clearly printed and marked on each glove, not just on the packaging.
- Identify the Responsible Party: The product must bear the name of the responsible importer or manufacturer.
- Demand the Certificates (The Key Point): Ask your distributor for third-party laboratory certificates that verify the protection levels for each specific model you purchase. If they cannot or will not provide them, it's an immediate red flag.
- Consider Independent Testing: In extreme cases or for very high-risk PPE, consider conducting tests in national laboratories to validate, under the standards of the norm, that the product complies.
At Bryan Safety, we share this responsibility. We verify that both the markings and certifications of each of the models we offer are authentic.
Let's beware of scams. By requiring this documentation, we maintain truly competitive national markets and, above all, protect our workers. Let's not take this lightly; if we do, these informal markets will continue to grow, becoming increasingly dangerous for our workforce.
Let's bring safety to the world's workers. Let's start at home.