Standards and labels

• EN ISO 21420:2020

  EN ISO 21420:2020 is a European standard that sets out the general requirements for hand protection, including comfort, fit, and dexterity.

  Reach out to ask about the standard test results

• EN 388:2016

  EN 388:2016 is a European standard for measuring the performance of protective gloves against mechanical risks (abrasion, cut, tear, and puncture). The standard includes test methods and performance requirements for gloves to be considered compliant. Test results are reported using a series of four numbers, each representing the performance level achieved in one of the tests.

  Test results

  Tear Resistance Level 1

  EN 388:2016 is a European standard that outlines the testing requirements for gloves to determine their level of protection against mechanical hazards, including tear resistance. The Tear Resistance Level 1 classification signifies that the gloves offer basic protection against tearing. The test method involves applying a force to a sample of the glove material to tear it, and the force measured reflects the glove's ability to resist tearing. Level 1 tear resistance means the gloves can withstand a force of between 10 to 25 Newtons before tearing. This basic level of protection is suitable for tasks where there is a minimal risk of tearing due to light manual handling or where gloves are used to prevent scratches or minor abrasions. Gloves with Level 1 tear resistance are appropriate for general activities that do not involve handling sharp or jagged materials.

  Cut Resistance, ISO 13997 Level X

  The standard EN 388:2016, specifically its segment referring to ISO 13997 test, is designed to assess the cut resistance of materials used in protective gloves. A result denoted as 'Level X' means that test is not performed and the cut resistance of the product cannot be guaranteed.

  Cut Resistance, Coup Test Level 1

  The EN 388:2016 standard is dedicated to gauging the mechanical risks for hand protection where a Cut Resistance, Coup Test Level 1 indicates minimal resistance to cutting because material achieved between 1.2 and 2.5 cycles before being cut through during the test. It means that the product tested at this level offers basic protection against shallow cuts, suitable for tasks with low risk of cut injuries. The test method used involves a rotating circular blade under a fixed force making contact with the fabric or material being tested. The blade moves back and forth across the material until a cut-through is achieved. The number of cycles required to cut through the sample at a consistent speed determines the cut resistance, with Level 1 being the second lowest rating after level 0. Products at this level are applicable in scenarios where there are minimal hazards from sharp objects, hence ideal for light duties where there is no significant risk of deep cuts.

  Abrasion Resistance Level 4

  EN 388:2016 uses a specific test method to measure abrasion resistance of safety gloves; the gloves’ material is subjected to sandpaper under pressure to observe the number of cycles needed to wear through the material. Level 4 in this standard indicates that the material withstood 8,000 cycles before a hole was made. Practically, this means that gloves rated at Level 4 for abrasion resistance offer very high resilience against wearing through, making them suitable for tasks involving significant contact with rough surfaces .

  Puncture Resistance Level 1

  The European standard EN 388:2016 addresses the puncture resistance of protective gloves, with puncture resistance classified from Levels 1 to 4. Specifically, a Level 1 result indicates minimal puncture resistance. This level of resistance is determined by a test involving a standardized stylus with a specified diameter and force. During the test, the stylus is pressed against the material with a force up to 20 Newtons to assess how well the glove can withstand penetration. A Level 1 rating signifies that the glove provides basic protection against small punctures or stabs, appropriate for areas with minimal risk. Practical implications for this test result suggest the gloves are suitable for light tasks where major risks of punctures are not anticipated, but are not adequate for handling sharp tools or heavy equipment where higher penetration resistance would be necessary.