How good is the protection provided by a glove?

At present, no harmonized method exists by which the protective action of gloves against cuts and abrasion can be tested in a highly reproducible and comparable manner. Although EN 388:2003, Protective gloves against mechanical risks) specifies a method, it exhibits considerable deficiencies and is urgently in need of updating. This has been known since 2007. WG 8 of CEN/TC 162 has however as yet been unable to agree to implement the available approaches to a solution in the standard.

It has proved difficult to find test methods for personal protective equipment by means of which the actual protective action can be determined. In order for suitable PPE to be selected, experienced experts must generally shortlist certain products, and then compare them with the conditions at the workplace concerned and the resulting criteria. The labelling, performance levels and user information derived from requirements in standards must therefore at least be sufficient for creation of this shortlist. For some years however, precisely this requirement has not been met with regard to cutting and abrasion hazards.

Not all cuts are the same

The cut-protection test described in EN 388 may result in a glove with a low performance level providing equal or for that matter better protection in a given work situation than a glove with a higher performance level. One of the essential reasons for this is that glove materials containing mineral fibres may blunt the standardized blade so rapidly that higher cut-protection levels are measured. The standard does not specify however how such blunting should be measured, nor how the test personnel can decide when the measurement should be considered acceptable, a blade should be replaced or the test should be aborted.

Such requirements and further proposals for improvements have already been described in an internal draft produced by the responsible European standards committee; however, these solutions, which could substantially improve the existing situation, have never progressed beyond the status of an unpublished working paper.

Another conceivable option would be for a test blade to be specified in the standard that is equally suitable for traditional materials and for new material types such as those reinforced by mineral fibres. This would however result in lower performance levels being determined than those determined to date in accordance with EN 388.

Should abrasion be tested seriously – or facts ignored?

The abrasion test also requires updating. The abrasive paper defined in the standard has not been available on the market since 2007. A substitute with comparable properties that satisfies the specifications of the standard has evidently not been found. Consequently, measurements are now performed across Europe with a variety of abrasive papers, yielding results that are not comparable. In addition, the standard does not adequately describe precisely when breakthrough of the material occurs during abrasion testing.

One solution that has long been possible in theory is an abrasive paper that permits better comparability and reproducibility of the abrasion values. Such a product has already been identified. These requirements, like those for cut protection, have not yet met with the consensus required for them to be incorporated into the standard.

A dangerous lack of progress in standardization

Despite the proposals that have been made over the years, EN 388, last amended in 2003, has still not been updated to what could be expected – at least as a temporary solution – of a harmonized standard. Since in many cases, not even reproducible product comparisons are possible for the hazards presented by cuts or abrasion, it is virtually impossible for suitable protective gloves to be selected for specific working conditions based upon the performance levels that are determined.

In order for users to be adequately protected and for employers to be able to fulfil their duty of care, protective gloves should not be rated excessively highly, nor should misleading user information be issued. The current situation not only makes preventive activity difficult, but also distorts competition. KAN will lobby at national and European level for EN 388 not to continue to give rise unjustifiably to a presumption of conformity.

Corrado Mattiuzzo
mattiuzzo@kan.de