Three standards account for most of the markings a buyer sees on an industrial glove, and they are frequently read as if they were interchangeable. They are not: one covers mechanical risks, one covers hand protection performance in the North American framework, and one covers thermal risks. A glove can carry all three, or one, or none, and the specification has to name the property the task requires rather than the family of the product.
Last updated:
What the Standard Actually Covers
It is worth noting what none of the three standards does. They describe the performance of a material or a construction under defined test conditions, and they do not describe how that performance translates to a specific task with a specific edge, temperature or chemical. They also do not cover fit, grip, or how long a glove is worn, which are the factors that most often decide whether the protection in the marking is the protection in use.
EN 388 is the European glove standard for mechanical risks. It addresses abrasion, cut, tear and puncture resistance, and the current version also provides for impact performance where a glove claims it. Each property is tested separately and expressed on its own scale, so a glove that performs well against abrasion may be ordinary against a cut and modest against a tear. The cut result is produced by defined test methods, which is a point worth noting because more than one method exists and they do not always agree.
ANSI/ISEA 105 is the North American standard for hand protection performance. It covers cut resistance on a scale that runs from A1 upward through the higher levels used for products built around aramid, steel or glass components, and it covers puncture resistance on its own scale. It also addresses other properties such as abrasion, but the cut and puncture scales are the ones buyers quote.
EN 407 covers thermal risks for protective gloves, and it is the standard that buyers reach for when a task involves heat. It addresses flammability, contact heat, convective heat, radiant heat, and small and large quantities of molten metal splash, each assessed separately. That separation matters: a glove may perform strongly against contact heat while offering less against molten metal splash, and the marking is what states which properties were tested.
The Ratings Buyers Are Asked to Prove
Where a site uses more than one framework, the record should state which framework each specification line was written against. That single field prevents the most common audit problem in this area, which is a specification that mixes a European cut level with a North American puncture level without stating which is which.
What a buyer is asked to demonstrate is that the glove specified carries the performance the task requires, and that the delivered product matches the specification. Three elements make that defensible.
- The hazard statement from the assessment, expressed in the terms of the standard that governs it.
- The performance claimed for the glove, taken from its test documentation and its marking.
- The link between the two: a recorded reason why that level was chosen for that task.
Where several properties are claimed, each needs its own evidence. A cut glove that also claims heat performance has been tested under two standards, and the documentation should cover both rather than presenting a single report as if it covered everything.
How Test Methods Differ Between Frameworks
Method also affects thermal testing, though in a different way. EN 407’s separate properties exist because the physical events differ: a hot surface held in the hand, a flame, a radiant load and a splash arrive by different mechanisms, and a material that resists one may perform poorly against another. When a task is described only as hot work, the specification cannot identify which of those properties is needed, and the glove bought to meet it is often tested for a property the task does not present.
The mechanical standards differ in both method and scale. EN 388 expresses cut performance using defined test protocols and a scale that has changed between editions, with the current edition providing letter-based levels alongside the historical coupe-test numbers. ANSI/ISEA 105 expresses cut performance on the A1 to A9 scale, based on a method that applies a straight blade under increasing load.
The practical consequence is that the two cut scales are not convertible by formula. A glove containing hard or abrasive fibres can blunt a rotating blade in one method and produce a favourable result, while the same glove behaves differently under a straight blade at increasing force. That is why a specification should name the framework it works to, and why a product sold in both markets should state its result under each.
EN 407 adds a further dimension because thermal properties are not a single scale either. Flammability, contact heat, convective heat, radiant heat and molten metal splash are separate tests, and the marking reports each separately. Two gloves described as heat protective can therefore be suited to quite different tasks.
Reading the Marking on the Product
The marking on a glove groups the standards and the performance figures the product carries, usually as pictograms with letters or numbers beside them. Reading it against the specification takes a moment and prevents most receiving problems.
Three checks are worth making at goods-in. Confirm that the standard and the performance figures match the specification rather than a similar model in the same range. Confirm which properties are actually claimed, since a familiar pictogram does not mean every property was tested. And confirm the size and the construction details that were specified, including cuff length and coating, because those are part of the performance as tested.
Comparing the US and EU Frameworks
Where a specification covers gloves from several suppliers, it is worth requiring the same information in the same format from each, so that the comparison is between products rather than between documents.
A single line stating the standard, the property and the level, repeated for every glove on the order, turns a folder of certificates into something that can be checked in a few minutes.
| Question | European framework | North American framework |
|---|---|---|
| Which standard covers mechanical risks? | EN 388, with separate performance for each property | ANSI/ISEA 105, including cut and puncture scales |
| How is cut performance expressed? | On the standard’s scale, using the defined test method | On the A1 to A9 scale |
| Which standard covers heat? | EN 407, with separate properties including molten metal splash | Property-specific thermal requirements in the applicable standards |
| What does the buyer verify? | The standard, the performance and the marking | The standard, the performance and the marking |
| What sits outside all of them? | Fit, grip, contamination and how long the glove is worn | Fit, grip, contamination and how long the glove is worn |
Read across the table, the frameworks answer the same questions in different vocabularies. The buyer’s task is to keep the specification inside one framework per property, and to reject any comparison that converts between them.
Common Misreadings of the Rating
One misreading is organisational rather than technical: a glove is carried over from one task to the next because it performed well in the first. The ratings travel with the glove, but the hazard does not, and the useful discipline is to re-check the requirement against the marking whenever a glove is issued for a different job.
- Treating the cut scales as equivalent. They are produced by different methods and are not convertible.
- Reading the highest number in a row as the overall rating. Each property is separate, and the one that matters is the one the task presents.
- Assuming a heat glove covers every thermal property. Flammability, contact heat, radiant heat and molten metal splash are tested and marked separately.
- Assuming a mechanical glove covers heat and chemicals. Those are different standards and different evidence.
- Comparing gloves across frameworks on level alone. A level from one framework is not a level in the other.
- Ignoring the test method. Where a framework allows more than one method, the result depends on which was used.
- Overlooking what the standard does not test. Grip, fit, contamination and the duration of wear are not part of the rating and often decide the outcome.
What Documentation to Request From a Supplier
Where a distributor is buying for resale, it is worth asking for the same documentation in a form that can be passed on to the end user, since the reseller is often the party asked to demonstrate compliance years later.
It is also worth confirming how the supplier handles a change of liner, coating or construction during the order period, because those changes can alter the tested performance even when the model name stays the same.
Ask for the standard the glove is tested to with the performance achieved for each property, the test evidence or declaration naming the model and the production site, the marking as supplied, the care instructions, and a batch traceability reference. Where the glove carries claims under more than one standard, ask for the evidence for each.
Two further requests help in practice. Ask for the intended-use information the manufacturer publishes for the model, since that is where the limits of the product are usually described. And ask for the sizing and fit data, because none of the ratings describe how the glove behaves on the hand.
The detail behind the cut scales specifically is covered in Shield Wings’ article on EN 388 and ANSI/ISEA 105 cut levels, which owns that comparison. The glove families themselves are listed on the cut resistant gloves page and in the wider hand protection category.
Shield Wings manufactures hand protection at a Guangdong production base, including cut resistant, coated, high temperature and firefighting families, and supplies industrial customers and distributors with the test documentation that supports each claim. The specification that works names the standard, the property and the level, and keeps the framework consistent for every item on the order.
For the wider selection framework, see our Hand, Cut & Impact Protection guide.
Evidence to Verify Before Approving Glove Standards Compared: EN 388, ANSI/ISEA 105 and EN 407
A supplier claim is not enough to approve Glove Standards Compared EN 388, ANSI/ISEA 105 and EN 407. The purchasing file should connect the workplace hazard to the exact model, its supporting documents, and the configuration workers will actually receive.
| Verification item | What to request | Reason to stop approval |
|---|---|---|
| Hazard basis | Task, exposure, environment, and the site assessment that created the requirement | The product is being selected from a catalogue without a documented hazard basis |
| Exact product identity | Model, size range, material or component specification, and revision | The quotation and test document refer to different models or constructions |
| Model-specific evidence | Applicable standard, edition, test method, result, laboratory, and report date | Only a generic certificate, logo, or supplier declaration is available |
| System compatibility | Instructions showing how the item works with the rest of the PPE ensemble | Fit, coverage, accessories, or another PPE item creates a protection gap |
| Receipt and change control | Approved sample, SKU or lot link, inspection criteria, and notice of material changes | The delivered item cannot be tied back to the approved sample and evidence |
For U.S. programs, keep this evidence with the employer’s PPE assessment and training records. OSHA’s general PPE requirements make hazard assessment, suitable equipment, proper fit, and employee training separate obligations; a product certificate does not replace them. See 29 CFR 1910.132.
When to Reopen the Selection Decision
Approval should not be treated as permanent. Reassess Glove Standards Compared EN 388, ANSI/ISEA 105 and EN 407 when the work, product, evidence, or condition changes.
- The task or exposure changes: repeat the hazard assessment before carrying the old specification into a new process, energy level, temperature, chemical, or work location.
- The supplied construction changes: obtain revised model-specific evidence when fabric, coating, component, accessory, test standard, or manufacturing route changes.
- Fit or compatibility fails: stop issue when movement, coverage, visibility, communication, dexterity, or another PPE item is compromised.
- Damage or contamination appears: follow the manufacturer’s inspection and retirement instructions rather than relying on appearance alone.
- Records no longer match: quarantine stock when the label, SKU, batch, user instructions, and supporting report cannot be reconciled.
This review gate turns procurement into a controlled decision: hazard → model → evidence → fit trial → receipt inspection → periodic reassessment.
FAQs
How should a workplace select Glove Standards Compared EN 388, ANSI/ISEA 105 and EN 407?
Start with the documented task and hazard assessment, then match the exact product model and configuration to the applicable requirements. Confirm fit and compatibility with the rest of the PPE system before issue.
What evidence should a buyer request for Glove Standards Compared EN 388, ANSI/ISEA 105 and EN 407?
Request model-specific documentation that identifies the product, applicable standard and edition, test method, result, laboratory, and report date. The quotation, label, instructions, and test evidence should describe the same construction.
When should Glove Standards Compared EN 388, ANSI/ISEA 105 and EN 407 be reassessed?
Reassess it when the task, exposure, work environment, product construction, applicable requirement, or other PPE in the ensemble changes. Damage, contamination, poor fit, and missing records also trigger review.
Can a certificate alone approve Glove Standards Compared EN 388, ANSI/ISEA 105 and EN 407?
No. A certificate may support one part of the decision, but the employer still needs a hazard-based selection, proper fit, worker training, compatible equipment, and inspection and retirement rules for the actual workplace.