Cut-resistant gloves rating chart: how to read protection levels

AI-generated editorial image for Cut-resistant gloves rating chart: how to read protection levels

A cut-resistant gloves rating chart is best read as a sequence of test results, not as one overall safety score. On an EN 388 label such as 4X43F, read each position from left to right, then check whether that exact glove and its coverage suit the residual hazard in the task.

The small code at the cuff can look like a shortcut: a number, an X, another number and a letter. It is useful, but it does not settle the job on its own. Mechanical ratings do not automatically establish protection from chemicals, heat, electricity, needles, wet exposure or moving machinery. They also do not make a glove cut-proof.

This guide decodes the marking first, then puts it back into a practical selection decision for Australian and New Zealand worksites.

Read the whole EN 388 code, not just the final letter

ISO 23388 covers protective gloves against mechanical risks including abrasion, blade cut, tear, puncture and, where applicable, impact. It specifies requirements, test methods, marking and information to be supplied.1 That is why an EN 388 marking has several positions: the mark is reporting different properties, not ranking a glove with one universal score.

The example below uses 4X43F, a marking listed for SiteGrips Work Site Gloves. It is a worked example of how to read a label, not a recommendation for every task.3

Position Mark in 4X43F What it reports What the mark does not tell you
1 4 Abrasion performance reported as level 4. How long the glove will last in every job.
2 X No result is claimed for the circular-blade (coupe) cut position. That the glove has failed every cut test or has no cut resistance.
3 4 Tear performance reported as level 4. Resistance to every snag, cut or machinery hazard.
4 3 Performance in the specified mechanical puncture test. Needle, thorn or every sharp-point resistance.
5 F ISO 13997/TDM straight-blade cut classification. Protection from all blades, all angles or all forces.
Optional 6 no P shown An impact P may appear when impact performance is claimed. That a glove without P has no useful mechanical properties, or that padding alone proves an impact claim.

The position order and the use of an optional impact letter are set out in the EN 388 explanation published by Spain’s occupational-safety institute, INSST.2 Keep the characters in order when recording the result. Saying only “Level F” leaves out the abrasion, tear and puncture positions, and says nothing about the unreported coupe result.

Why an X is not a zero

An X is commonly misread as a failed score. In this marking it means the relevant result was not performed or is not claimed, so that property is unknown from the label. INSST also explains that the TDM result is the reference cut result where the coupe blade is blunted by a high-resistance material.2

There is no safe shortcut from that explanation to a product-specific reason for an X. Read what the label says, then consult the manufacturer’s information for the exact model if more detail is needed. Do not fill the gap with an assumption about the fibre, coating or construction.

What cut level F actually measures

The F in an EN 388 marking refers to an ISO 13997 cut test. ISO describes it as a tomodynamometer method for determining a material or assembly’s resistance to cutting by sharp edges. Its examples include knives, sheet-metal parts, swarf, glass, bladed tools and castings.4

That makes the letter relevant when a task has a sharp-edge exposure. It still has a defined boundary. ISO 13997 says the method does not provide data on penetration by pointed objects such as needles and thorns, or by the point of a sharp-edged blade.4 A high cut class is therefore evidence from that defined method, not a claim that every sharp contact is controlled.

For example, consider a task where hands guide a dry sheet with exposed edges. The assessment needs more than the letter on the cuff: where the edge can contact the hand, the likely direction and force, whether the palm and fingers are the protected areas, and the grip needed to control the sheet. If the same work changes to handling a sharp point or a wet hazardous substance, the evidence needed changes too.

For a fuller explanation of that boundary, see why cut-resistant gloves are not cut-proof.

Do not convert ANSI/ISEA and EN 388 labels by eye

Some gloves carry both an EN 388 marking and an ANSI/ISEA cut classification. They should be read as separate declared results, not as two ways of stating the same number.

ANSI/ISEA 105:2024 uses cut classes from A1 to A9. The ISEA classification poster presents the corresponding cut-load thresholds from 200 to 6,000 grams-force.5 EN 388, meanwhile, combines several mechanical-test positions and an ISO 13997 letter where applicable. An ANSI/ISEA A5 and an EN 388 F are not a conversion pair.

The practical purchasing rule is simple: record each marking exactly as it appears on the model documentation. If a brief requires a particular system, request that system’s marking for the exact glove. Do not replace it with a supposed equivalent from another chart.

Use the rating after the hazard has been described

Ratings help compare documented glove performance. They do not replace the earlier work of identifying the hazard and reducing it where possible. ISO’s hand-protection guidance says selection and use of gloves follows a risk assessment and hazard reduction through substitution and technical or organisational measures.6

WorkSafe WA gives the same useful direction for glove selection: identify the hazards, assess the risk and consider controls, then ensure the glove is compatible with the wearer, work and other required PPE.7

Before accepting a cut rating as part of a glove decision, check these points:

  1. Describe the contact. Is the hazard an edge, a point, rough material, a liquid, heat, electrical exposure or a combination? Note where it can contact the hand and for how long.
  2. Read the complete marking. Keep the characters in position order. A final cut letter does not replace the rest of the mechanical code.
  3. Confirm the exact model and coverage. A marking does not automatically explain which areas of a particular glove provide the reported performance. Check the product information and user documentation.
  4. Treat different hazards as different questions. For a hazardous substance, consult the current safety data sheet and chemical-specific glove information. For heat, electricity, needles, points or machinery, use the applicable specialist evidence and workplace procedure rather than a mechanical code.
  5. Check fit in ordinary authorised work. A glove should allow the required normal handling without excess material, twisting or poor control. Do not test fit or protection by deliberately contacting a sharp edge, chemical, live source or moving equipment.

WorkSafe WA cautions that some gloves are not safe around machinery. Correct fit can reduce entanglement risk, but it does not decide whether gloves may be worn for a particular machine or task.7

A model-specific example: SiteGrips Work Site Gloves

The current SiteGrips Work Site Gloves product page lists a 13-gauge HPPE liner, sandy nitrile palm, reinforced thumb web and forefinger wear areas, sizes M to XXL, and the markings EN 388 4X43F, ISO 13997 Cut Level F, ANSI/ISEA A5, CE Category II and AS/NZS 2161.3:2020.3

Those are first-party, model-specific product claims. They are useful for checking a candidate against a defined mechanical-risk brief. They do not establish chemical compatibility, electrical insulation, thermal protection, whole-glove waterproofness, needle protection, impact protection or suitability around machinery.

That distinction is particularly important when a glove is being considered for more than one type of work. A mechanical label can be part of a sound decision for a task with an assessed mechanical exposure. It should not be stretched to cover an unrelated exposure because the glove is already on hand.

Keep the cuff label connected to glove condition

The marking does not override condition. WorkSafe WA advises inspecting gloves before and after use, discarding gloves with obvious weaknesses or faults, and keeping records of gloves selected for the task along with manufacturer cleaning and storage instructions.7

Use the exact model’s care directions. Reassess the selection if the glove is damaged or contaminated, if its relevant area has worn, if normal hand control changes, or if the task changes. A replacement that looks similar is not automatically an equivalent replacement; confirm its full marking and documentation before substituting it.

The useful way to use a rating chart

The best use of a cut-resistant gloves rating chart is to make the cuff label legible, not to turn it into a universal approval. 4X43F reports separate mechanical results, including a highest-class F result in the ISO 13997 straight-blade test. It does not mean “safe from cuts” in every circumstance, and it does not answer different hazards.

Read each position, match the relevant result to the actual exposure, check the exact model’s information and make sure the glove remains workable for authorised handling. Where a label or document cannot answer the hazard in front of you, obtain the right evidence or change the control rather than guessing from the highest-looking character.

Sources

  1. ISO 23388:2018, abstract. ↩

  2. INSST, NTP 1146, marking and cut-test explanations. This Spanish government source is paraphrased in English. ↩↩

  3. SiteGrips Work Site Gloves, current product specifications. ↩↩

  4. ISO 13997:2024, abstract. ↩↩

  5. ISEA, Key to Hand Classifications, ANSI/ISEA 105-2024. ↩

  6. ISO/TR 8546:2022, abstract. ↩

  7. WorkSafe WA, Gloves — selection, use and maintenance (PDF). ↩↩↩