Demystifying the cut resistance standards
Demystifying cut resistance standards
Historically, a glove level of cut resistance was given a value between 1-5. You may even have colleagues who still refer to a highly cut resistant glove as being a ‘Cut 5’. This is the EN388:2003 standard which was upgraded in 2016.
The standards and indeed the testing have been significantly improved, and the old level 1-5 has now been suspended with a new standard which gives cut resistance an index rating between A-F. This is the EN388:2016.
Confusion between the two standards and how they relate to each other is a common issue, with professionals often reverting to the old 1-5 level due to its familiarity.
This short blog explains the difference between the old and new standards, including the testing protocols and explains why it is much safer to use the new EN388:2016 standard, indexes A-F when selecting your cut resistant gloves.
EN388:2003 STANDARD
The older standard, EN388:2003, gave a cut resistant glove a level between 1 and 5. It was based on the Coupe or the rotating blade test.
Every rotation of the blade equated to an index. The higher the number of indexes before the blade makes a penetration of the glove, the higher the cut resistant rating that the glove will receive.
The chart below explains how many indexes or rotations per cut resistance level.
This Coupe test has the following weaknesses:
- Exposure to a rotating blade is not typical of the cut risk for most operatives at work
- The integrity of the blade is not maintained as it progressively becomes blunter as the number of rotations increases, therefore the accuracy of the test is reduced
- Because there are only five levels, there is a big variance or range e.g. a glove that can withstand 20 rotations will still have the same rating as a glove that can withstand 60 rotations
- For the above reasons it is hard to know exactly how much protection a glove with a cut level 1 to 5 offers
EN388:2016 STANDARD
The new cut resistance standard, EN388:2016 givex an index rating between A and F. It is tested using a straight blade cut.
The letter at the end of the hammer symbol indicates the glove’s level of cut resistance.
This test measures the pressure (in newtons) using a straight blade. The amount the pressure that can be applied before penetration of the glove determines the cut resistance index.
This test is far more accurate that the previous rotating blade test because:
- A straight edge is much closer to the typical risks encountered by operatives
- The blade is replaced every test
- There is less variance or range between cut indexes, meaning that operatives have a more accurate idea of how protective their gloves are
OLD vs NEW
A good analogy to refer to when comparing the old with the new standards is decimalisation, where we transitioned from pounds, shillings and pennies to pounds and pence.
There is not exactly any correlation between the two cut standards because the tests are so different.
Be aware of the ‘old money’ or cut level 1-5 that are still found on some gloves.
A glove with a letter (A to F) is the safest way to ensure you hands are sufficiently protected.
Expert Insights: Where has the 'health' gone in Health + Safety?
Expert Insights: Where has the 'health' gone in Health + Safety?
Our first thought in hand protection is often to start with a glove that would protect operatives’ hands against the possibility of injury incurred by mechanical hazards, such as cuts or puncture wounds etc. And this isn’t wrong.
But when was the last time we stepped back and asked a different question: are we really looking after long-term health of our operatives’ hands?
Did you know that Construction operatives are more than twice as likely to develop contact dermatitis, as those working within other industries?
For many, this isn’t just a minor irritation, it can mean ongoing pain, discomfort, and in some cases, having to leave the job altogether. For businesses, it can result in £ millions being paid out to victims in compensation.
What could cause the onset of dermatitis?
Often, it’s the things we don’t immediately see:
- Wearing damp gloves for long periods can cause repeated friction on the skin, leading to irritation.
- Wet work without the right protection, such as handling concrete, can strip moisture from the skin and even cause burns.
- In hotter conditions, sweat trapped inside gloves creates the perfect environment for bacteria and fungi to grow.
- And of course, exposure to certain chemicals can sensitise the skin over time and trigger dermatitis.
SO, WHAT CAN WE DO TO OVERCOME THESE RISKS?
Hand protection vs hand health?
This brings us to a question that often comes up: hand protection vs. hand health – which matters more?
The answer is simple: it shouldn’t be a trade-off.
Start by setting a clear baseline for mechanical protection, then select gloves that are suited to the working environment (wet or dry). By doing this, you’re not only protecting against immediate injury but also addressing the underlying causes of long-term hand health issues.
As organisations, it’s essential we take a holistic view on hand protection, considering the health and safety of our operatives’ hands, not just for now, but for the long-term.
Micro-training: When to replace gloves
Resources: When to replace gloves
Introduction
Many gloves are disposed of before they’re actually worn out, while others stay in use long after they should have been replaced.
When should gloves be replaced?
Only dispose of gloves if:
1. Holes in the lining
2. Coating has worn away
3. Gloves are damp or have an odour from contaminated oils, greases, or water
If none of these apply, the gloves are still good to use.
Common problems we see:
- Gloves thrown out after light use
- Gloves kept far too long, even when protection has dropped
- Wrong gloves used for the task, leading to faster wear and tear
- Gloves not stored properly, taking damage between shifts
Simple habits to reduce waste and improve safety:
- Choose the right glove for the task, using your activity matrices
- Keep gloves clean and dry between uses
- Store them properly – don’t leave them in wet or dirty areas
- Report early wear so we can review the glove selection with you and make improvements
Download the poster
Download this poster and display it as a quick prompt to help everyone use each pair of gloves to its full, safe potential, and change them at the right time.
From Incident to Insights: A Preventable Amputation
From Incident to Insights: A Preventable Amputation
The Incident
During routine maintenance on a hydraulic reciprocating floor, a large piece of metal unexpectedly fell, resulting in the partial amputation of a worker’s index finger.
Although the energy source had been isolated, the potential for falling objects had not been fully considered during task planning.
Contributing Factors
Several issues were identified that could have contributed to the injury:
- Unrecognised hazard: The risk of falling components was not identified during the risk assessment.
- Task unfamiliarity: Although experienced, the worker was less familiar with this specific repair.
- End of week timing: The job was completed late on a Friday. Fatigue and the natural urge to finish up can affect judgement more than we realise.
- PPE considerations: Alternative hand protection would have changed the outcome and reduced the severity of the injury.
Personal Reflection
“This incident was a turning point for me, both professionally and personally. Losing part of my index finger has made me realise how quickly accidents can happen – even during tasks I’ve performed countless times before. It reinforced that familiarity can lead to complacency, and complacency is dangerous in a high-risk environment.”
“I’ve learned that safety is not just about following rules, it’s about actively thinking ahead, identifying hazards before they become incidents, and speaking up when something feels unsafe. I now approach every task with heightened awareness and encourage my team to do the same. This experience has also shown me the importance of mental resilience and support systems—recovering physically is one thing, but adapting mentally to a permanent change takes time and understanding. Simple mundane tasks such as closing my top button now requires a level of thinking for me. I recently bought a new coat which had a differently handed zipper which is the latest new challenge!”
“Moving forward, I have been committed to being an advocate for safety improvements and ensuring that lessons learned from this incident lead to tangible changes that protect everyone on site.”
Key Learnings for Hand Injury Prevention
1. Treat familiar tasks with the same caution as new ones
Routine work can hide evolving hazards, and components can shift or release unexpectedly. Taking a moment to reassess can prevent life-changing injuries.
2. Recognise the impact of timing and fatigue
End-of-day and end-of-week jobs carry added risk. When focus drops, mistakes happen more easily.
3. Select PPE based on the specific risk, not habit
Gloves and hand protection should match the specific hazards involved. Higher cut resistance as a minimum threshold can help protect against unexpected risks.
4. Encourage a culture where people speak up
If something feels unsafe, it needs to be addressed. People should feel confident to question conditions without hesitation.
5. Share real life incidents openly
Stories like this help others recognise risks they may not have considered, and that transparency helps prevent the same thing happening again.