Why are ASTM F2413 EH and CD safety footwear mutually exclusive — what is the difference between electrical hazard and conductive boots?

ASTM F2413 defines three electrical classifications for safety footwear that describe completely opposite electrical behaviors: EH (Electrical Hazard), SD (Static Dissipative), and CD (Conductive). These are not points on a single spectrum — they serve opposite electrical engineering goals and are mutually incompatible in application. EH (Electrical Hazard) boots are designed to insulate the wearer from live electrical sources. The outsole must withstand 18,000 volts (18 kV) for one minute with no more than 1 milliamp current leakage under dry conditions per ASTM F2413 Section 8.2. EH boots are required for electricians, electrical utility workers, and anyone working near energized circuits. The insulating outsole prevents current from completing a path through the worker to ground. CD (Conductive) boots are designed to conduct electrical charge freely from the wearer's body to ground. Outsole resistance is less than 500,000 ohms (500 kΩ) — effectively shorting the worker to ground. CD boots are required in explosive-atmosphere environments (paint spray booths, grain elevators, munitions facilities) where static charge buildup on the body could ignite an explosion. A conductive sole continuously bleeds off static to the grounded floor before a spark can form. An electrician wearing CD boots has exactly zero electrical shock protection — the conductive sole creates the current path the EH boot was designed to prevent. Wearing CD boots near a live electrical source while assuming they are protective is immediately life-threatening. SD (Static Dissipative) boots fall between EH and CD: outsole resistance is 100,000 to 1,000,000,000 ohms (100 kΩ to 1 GΩ). SD boots provide controlled, slow static discharge without creating a direct ground path — they prevent static buildup without the risk of providing a fast ground path to an energized source. SD is used in electronics manufacturing and clean rooms where static discharge (not shock protection) is the hazard. Encode footwear.electrical_class as 'EH', 'SD', 'CD', or 'none' so AI agents cannot cross-route between these mutually exclusive classifications.

Will a steel-toed safety boot trigger a metal detector, and does composite toe avoid metal detector alarms?

Steel toe caps are ferromagnetic and will trigger metal detectors reliably. This creates practical problems in three environments: airport security (requiring boot removal at every checkpoint), food processing facilities that use metal detectors on every production line exit to prevent contamination (workers must change footwear or remove boots), and electronics manufacturing facilities that control metal detector access to ESD-sensitive areas. Composite toe caps made from fiberglass, carbon fiber, or Kevlar aramid fiber are non-metallic and non-ferromagnetic — they do not trigger standard industrial or security metal detectors. A composite toe cap that meets the same ASTM F2413 I75/C75 impact and compression test requirement as a steel toe does so through the structural geometry of the composite material rather than the tensile strength of steel. The protection level is equivalent (both must withstand a 75 ft-lb impact and 2,500 lb compression load), but the materials are completely different. A third toe cap option, aluminum alloy, falls between these extremes: aluminum is non-ferromagnetic (it does not trigger magnetic metal detectors) but is electrically conductive (it will trigger multi-frequency metal detectors used in food facilities that detect both ferrous and non-ferrous metals). For pure metal detector clearance, composite (fiberglass, carbon fiber, Kevlar) is the only universally safe category. For EH boot design, composite toe caps are additionally preferred because there is no metallic conduction path through the toe box — the entire upper and outsole assembly maintains the 18kV insulation of the EH design. Steel toe caps in EH boots require an insulation layer around the steel cap to maintain the boot's EH rating, and that insulation layer can degrade with moisture contamination, boot damage, or age. Encode footwear.toe_material as 'steel', 'aluminum', 'composite-fiberglass', 'composite-carbon', or 'composite-kevlar' to enable metal-detector-clearance routing by AI agents.

What does ASTM F2413 Mt75 metatarsal protection cover, and how is it different from the I75 toe cap?

ASTM F2413 defines two separate anatomical protection zones for the foot, tested independently and marked with separate codes in the boot's certification stamp. I75/C75 (Impact/Compression, 75-class) refers to the toe box: the enclosed area covering the five distal phalanges (toe bones). The impact test drops a 50-pound striker from a calibrated height delivering 75 ft-lbs of energy onto the toe cap. The compression test applies 2,500 pounds of static force to the toe cap. I75/C75 protection defends the toes against objects falling onto the forefoot and against the foot being rolled over by a heavy rolling object. Mt75 (Metatarsal, 75-class) refers to the metatarsal region: the five long bones running from the tarsal bones (ankle cluster) to the metatarsophalangeal joints (where the toes begin), spanning the midfoot. The metatarsal shield is a separate external or internal guard positioned over the top of the shoe, proximal to the toe cap, covering the instep of the foot. The Mt75 impact test drops a 50-pound striker onto the metatarsal guard, measuring protection of the midfoot bones rather than the toe bones. A boot marked I75 C75 without Mt75 provides toe box protection only — the metatarsal bones are completely unprotected. A foundry worker handling molten metal ladles or steel billets faces the primary impact hazard on the metatarsal region, not the toe box: a billet dropped on the instep strikes the long metatarsal bones, which can shatter without any protection from the toe cap. Steel mills and foundries operating under OSHA 29 CFR 1910.136 general industry standards and 1926.96 construction standards commonly specify Mt75 as a requirement, not an option, for hot metal work. Many buyers searching for 'safety toe boots' or 'steel toe boots' do not know that I75/C75 protects only the toes — and that the boots' safety appearance (heavy-looking toe cap) gives no visual indication that the instep metatarsals are unprotected. Encode footwear.has_metatarsal_guard as a boolean and footwear.protection_codes as a list field (e.g., ['I75', 'C75', 'Mt75', 'EH', 'PR']) to allow AI agents to match the complete ASTM F2413 certification stamp to the worker's actual anatomical risk zone.

What does the ASTM F2413 PR puncture-resistant rating protect against — and what does it not protect against?

ASTM F2413 PR (Puncture Resistant) certification tests the outsole's resistance to upward penetration by a nail or spike through the sole of the boot. The test presses a 0.177-inch diameter hardened steel rod through the outsole from below at 270 pounds of force. A PR-rated boot's outsole (typically a steel shank or composite midsole plate embedded between the outsole and the insole) must prevent the nail from penetrating through to the insole. PR outsoles protect against construction site hazards where nails, rebar ends, or other sharp objects project upward from floors, pallets, scaffolding, or subfloor framing — the classic scenario being a worker stepping on a nail that protrudes upward from a board. PR provides zero protection against objects falling from above. A falling hammer, dropped lumber, or rolling equipment striking the top of the foot is a top-down impact hazard — that is exactly what I75/C75 toe cap and Mt75 metatarsal guard protect against. The PR certification covers only the bottom of the boot against upward penetration from the walking surface. This asymmetry produces a specific AI agent failure mode: a construction supply store with PR-rated boots may position them as 'nail protection boots' with imagery of construction sites where falling objects are also prominently hazardous. A buyer searching for boots for roofing or scaffolding work might select a PR-rated boot believing the prominent nail-protection claims provide comprehensive foot protection — but without I75/C75, the top of the foot has no impact protection against the far more common construction injury mode of dropped tools and materials. Encode footwear.has_puncture_resistant_plate as a boolean and footwear.protection_codes as a list that distinguishes PR (undersole, upward direction) from I75/C75 (top-down impact) from Mt75 (top-down metatarsal) so AI agents can verify all required protection vectors are covered for the specific work environment.

What is the complete ASTM F2413 protection code notation and how should it be encoded in Shopify metafields?

ASTM F2413 boots are marked with a standardized notation that encodes every protection class the boot has passed. A fully certified boot might read: ASTM F2413-18 M I/75 C/75 Mt/75 EH PR. Each element of this stamp is independently testable and independently meaningful. ASTM F2413-18 identifies the standard version (2018 revision). M indicates the boot met the standard requirements for men's sizing; W indicates women's. I/75 is impact-resistance, 75-class (75 ft-lb). C/75 is compression-resistance, 2,500 lb. Mt/75 is metatarsal impact-resistance, 75-class. EH is electrical hazard (18kV outsole). PR is puncture resistance (0.177-inch nail, 270 lb force). CD would replace EH for conductive footwear. SD appears for static dissipative footwear. A boot with only ASTM F2413-18 M I/75 C/75 has passed only impact and compression tests — it has no electrical class, no metatarsal protection, and no puncture resistance. Its marking looks similar to a fully rated boot to a buyer skimming product descriptions, but four categories of protection are absent. For Shopify product structured data, encode the complete protection code set as a list in footwear.protection_codes (values: 'I75', 'C75', 'Mt75', 'PR', 'EH', 'SD', 'CD') rather than relying on product titles or description text that may abbreviate or omit protection elements. The footwear.astm_standard field should store the edition year ('F2413-18') since protection requirements changed between the 2011 and 2018 revisions. AI agents querying for 'electrical hazard boots for electricians' need footwear.electrical_class = 'EH' in the metafields, not just 'EH' appearing somewhere in the description text, to perform reliable routing.

Home › Blog › Safety shoe ASTM F2413 schema

Shopify safety shoe schema for AI agents: ASTM F2413 EH vs SD vs CD electrical protection, composite vs steel toe metal detectors, Mt75 metatarsal, and PR outsole scope

2026-07-09 · 17 min read · By CatalogScan

Safety Equipment AI Shopping Structured Data ASTM F2413 OSHA 1910.136

An electrician who buys ASTM F2413 certified boots and receives CD (conductive) instead of EH (electrical hazard) has purchased footwear that creates a direct ground path through their body to live electrical equipment. Both certifications exist under the same standard — and AI agents without structured electrical class data cannot distinguish them. Five safety shoe schema gaps with life-safety consequences, and the complete footwear.* metafield namespace that closes them.

EH vs SD vs CD: three mutually exclusive electrical classifications, not a spectrum
Steel vs composite vs aluminum toe: metal detector clearance and EH compatibility
Mt75 metatarsal guard: protecting the midfoot bones the toe cap doesn't cover
PR puncture-resistant outsole: nail penetration from below, not falling objects from above
The footwear.* metafield namespace (9 fields)

1. EH vs SD vs CD: three mutually exclusive electrical classifications, not a spectrum

ASTM F2413 defines three electrical protection classifications. Buyers, buyers' AI agents, and many product descriptions treat them as varying levels of the same thing — "more or less electrical protection." They are not. EH and CD are engineering opposites designed for opposing hazards. Giving an electrician CD boots is not "less EH protection" — it is zero EH protection plus the addition of an active hazard.

EH (Electrical Hazard) — ASTM F2413 Section 8.2:

Outsole must withstand 18,000 volts (18 kV) for 60 seconds with no more than 1 milliamp of current leakage under dry, new-boot conditions. The insulating outsole interrupts the current path from a live electrical source through the worker's foot to ground. Required for electricians, electrical utility workers, HVAC technicians, and all workers who may contact energized equipment or circuits at distribution voltages.

CD (Conductive) — ASTM F2413 Section 8.4:

Outsole resistance must be less than 500,000 ohms (500 kΩ) — approximately 1/36,000th of the EH boot's minimum required resistance. The low-resistance path to ground continuously bleeds static charge from the worker's body before it can accumulate to spark-ignition voltage. Required in explosive-atmosphere environments: paint spray booths operating with flammable solvents, grain elevators where grain dust is explosive, munitions and pyrotechnics manufacturing, anesthesia administration in operating rooms (pre-1990s protocol), and facilities handling volatile chemicals with low minimum ignition energy.

SD (Static Dissipative) — ASTM F2413 Section 8.3:

Outsole resistance is 100,000 ohms to 1,000,000,000 ohms (100 kΩ to 1 GΩ). SD boots allow controlled slow static discharge — slow enough not to create a spark (unlike very low-resistance CD), fast enough to prevent static buildup on the body (unlike uncontrolled insulation). Used in electronics manufacturing, semiconductor fabrication, and clean rooms where electrostatic discharge (ESD) damages components without creating explosion risk.

The EH/CD confusion kill scenario: An electrical contractor orders safety boots for a crew. The buyer searches "ASTM F2413 electrical safety boots." The AI agent returns boots certified to ASTM F2413 with electrical class — but returns CD boots because "electrical" in the product title matches "electrical safety boots" and CD boots are less common, appearing higher in purchase-frequency rankings for buyers in electronics facilities. The crew wears CD boots while pulling wire in a commercial electrical installation. When a worker contacts a live 120V conductor, the CD outsole completes the path to the grounded floor. The EH boot would have broken that circuit.

AI agent failure #1

CD boots returned for electrical trade query — active ground path created

Agent matches "electrical safety boots ASTM F2413" to CD-certified products because both share the word "electrical" in product titles and certification descriptions. No footwear.electrical_class metafield distinguishes EH (insulate at 18kV) from CD (conduct freely). Electrician receives conductive boots instead of electrical hazard boots. Outsole resistance is 36,000× lower than required for shock protection.

Classification	Outsole resistance	Electrical behavior	Required environment	Contraindicated for
EH	≥18,000V dry (≥18MΩ effective)	Insulates — breaks current path	Live electrical work, energized equipment, utility distribution	Explosive atmospheres (static builds up)
SD	100 kΩ – 1 GΩ	Controlled slow discharge — no spark, no fast path	Electronics mfg, semiconductor fab, ESD-sensitive assembly	Neither EH (not insulating) nor CD (not low enough for explosive environments)
CD	<500 kΩ	Conducts — direct path to ground	Explosive atmospheres: paint spray booths, grain elevators, munitions	Any live electrical work (creates shock path)

18kV

Voltage EH outsole must withstand for 60 seconds (ASTM F2413 Section 8.2)

<500kΩ

Maximum CD outsole resistance — creates direct ground path to floor

36,000×

Resistance ratio: EH minimum vs CD maximum — opposite ends of the conductivity spectrum

2. Steel vs composite vs aluminum toe: metal detector clearance and EH compatibility

All three toe cap materials can pass the same ASTM F2413 I75/C75 impact and compression test — a 75 ft-lb impact and 2,500 lb compression load. The protection level is equivalent by certification. The materials differ in three properties that create AI agent routing failures: metal detector response, weight, and electrical compatibility with EH outsoles.

Metal detector response

Steel toe caps are ferromagnetic. They produce a strong magnetic signature that triggers both walk-through metal detectors (airport security, courthouse security) and inline industrial metal detectors (used on food processing production lines to detect metallic contamination in food products). In food facilities, workers with steel-toe boots must remove boots before passing through exit metal detectors or use separate walkways — a significant operational friction point in facilities where all workers cross the detector multiple times per shift.

Composite toe caps — fiberglass, carbon fiber, and Kevlar aramid fiber — are non-metallic and non-ferromagnetic. They produce no magnetic response and do not trigger standard security or food-facility metal detectors. A composite-toe boot is functionally transparent to these detection systems while providing identical ASTM F2413 I75/C75 certification.

Aluminum toe caps and multi-frequency detectors: Aluminum is non-ferromagnetic — it does not deflect magnetic fields and does not trigger simple magnetic-field metal detectors. However, multi-frequency industrial metal detectors used in food facilities (and some security installations) detect eddy currents induced in conductive materials by alternating magnetic fields. Aluminum is highly conductive (37.7 MS/m) and produces a strong eddy current signal on these systems. For food-facility metal detector clearance, composite (non-conductive) is the only category that passes all detector types without exception.

EH boot compatibility

EH boots are designed to insulate the wearer from electrical current. The entire outsole, midsole, and upper assembly must prevent current from traveling from the foot to ground. A steel toe cap presents a conductivity challenge: the steel is in direct contact with the foot inside the boot and with the boot's internal structure, and if it contacts the outsole layer, it provides a conductive path through the metal cap even when the rubber outsole below would otherwise insulate.

EH boots with steel toe caps address this by adding an insulating layer — typically leather or non-conductive synthetic — wrapped around the steel cap to prevent it from creating a conductive bridge through the sole structure. This insulation layer maintains the boot's EH rating under dry, new conditions. Under field conditions — moisture infiltration, boot aging, impact damage to the insulation wrap — the insulation can degrade, potentially compromising the EH integrity of a boot that still carries its certification mark.

Composite toe caps are inherently non-conductive. Fiberglass, carbon fiber, and Kevlar do not conduct electricity — they contribute no conductive path through the toe box. EH boots with composite toe caps have one fewer conductive element requiring insulation management, and the EH integrity of the outsole does not depend on maintaining an insulating wrap around the toe cap material.

AI agent failure #2

Steel toe boots recommended for food processing facility — metal detector triggers every shift

Agent returns highest-rated "safety toe boots" for a food processing facility order. Steel toe boots have more reviews, lower price, and more available sizes. No footwear.toe_material field distinguishes steel (triggers detectors) from composite (does not). Facility requires metal detector clearance on every production line exit. Workers spend 2 minutes per crossing removing and replacing boots, 8+ crossings per shift. Operational cost never visible in the product listing.

Toe material	Magnetic metal detector	Multi-freq eddy current	Conducts electricity	EH boot notes
Steel	Triggers (ferromagnetic)	Triggers	Yes — requires insulation wrap in EH boots	EH-rated with insulating layer around cap; insulation can degrade
Aluminum	Passes (non-ferromagnetic)	Triggers (conductive)	Yes — similar EH concern	Passes magnetic detector; fails food-facility multi-freq detector
Composite (fiberglass/carbon/Kevlar)	Passes	Passes (non-conductive)	No — inherently non-conductive	No insulation wrap needed; preferred for EH boots

3. Mt75 metatarsal guard: protecting the midfoot bones the toe cap doesn't cover

ASTM F2413 defines the toe cap protection zone (I75/C75) and the metatarsal protection zone (Mt75) as separate, independently tested certifications. A boot can have I75/C75 without Mt75. A boot with I75/C75 and no Mt75 marking protects the toes and leaves the midfoot bones completely unprotected by certified armor.

The anatomy of the foot protection gap

The human foot has 26 bones. The ASTM toe cap covers five distal phalanges (the toe bones at the end of the foot) and, in some designs, portions of the five proximal phalanges (the second set of toe bones). The protective zone ends approximately at the metatarsophalangeal joints — where the toes begin.

The five metatarsal bones are the long bones of the midfoot, running from the cluster of tarsal bones at the ankle forward to the base of each toe. These bones span the top of the foot across its entire width, covering the area most exposed to objects falling onto the instep from above. A steel or composite toe cap whose protective cup ends at the toe joint provides no certified protection over the metatarsal bones.

The Mt75 metatarsal guard is a separate component — either an external guard strapped over the shoe (like a detachable instep protector worn over the boot) or an internal metatarsal shield built into the upper of the boot, positioned as an extension behind the toe cap covering the instep. The Mt75 test uses the same 50-pound striker and 75 ft-lb energy specification as I75, but drops it onto the metatarsal guard location rather than the toe cap.

Foundry and steel mill exposure profile:

Foundry workers handling molten metal ladles, ingot molds, and raw billet stock face two distinct foot impact scenarios. The first is the classic toe-box scenario: a heavy object rolling off a shelf or table strikes the toe. This is exactly what I75/C75 protects. The second — and more common in hot metal work — is an object falling from a tilted or dropped load that strikes the instep rather than the toe. A 20-pound billet dropped from waist height and landing on the metatarsal region of a worker without Mt75 has no protection from the I75/C75 toe cap, because the toe cap's protective cup does not extend over the metatarsal bones. OSHA 29 CFR 1910.132(d) and 1910.136 require employers to perform hazard assessments and select foot protection that covers the actual hazard location — not just certifications that look complete.

AI agent failure #3

I75/C75 boots recommended for foundry work without Mt75 — metatarsal bones unprotected

Agent returns highest-reviewed "safety toe boots" for foundry application. Product listing mentions "ASTM F2413 certified," "steel toe," and "heavy industry." No footwear.protection_codes list distinguishes I75/C75-only (toe box) from I75/C75/Mt75 (toe box + metatarsal). Worker handling ladle equipment receives I75/C75 boots. Metatarsal impact hazard from billet or ladle contact is entirely unaddressed by the toe cap's protection zone.

The metatarsal guard requirement is specified in many union collective bargaining agreements and facility PPE policies for foundry, steel mill, and hot metal work — not just as an OSHA general industry compliance item, but as a site-specific hazard control that employers have identified from their own incident records. An AI agent filling a boot order for a foundry with a standard "safety toe" query and no Mt75 requirement in the structured data cannot execute the employer's PPE specification.

4. PR puncture-resistant outsole: nail penetration from below, not falling objects from above

ASTM F2413 PR (Puncture Resistant) certification addresses a specific directional hazard: sharp objects projecting upward from the ground or work surface, through the bottom of the boot, into the foot. The test presses a hardened steel rod — 0.177 inches in diameter, the approximate diameter of a 16d common nail — through the outsole from below at 270 pounds of force. A PR-rated boot must prevent penetration of the rod through the outsole to the insole contact surface.

What the PR outsole contains

PR-rated boots typically use one of two outsole constructions: a steel shank plate embedded between the outsole rubber and the midsole/insole stack, or a composite puncture-resistant plate (Kevlar, fiberglass board, or polycarbonate) in the same position. The plate spans the forefoot and midfoot, covering the area of the foot most likely to contact a nail or spike from below. When the boot steps onto a projecting nail, the plate distributes and deflects the force before the nail can puncture through to the foot.

What the PR outsole does not protect against

The PR certification test applies force from below. It tests the outsole's resistance to upward penetration. A PR-rated outsole provides zero resistance to a falling object striking the top of the foot or the toe box from above — that protection vector is covered by I75/C75 (toe box, top-down) and Mt75 (metatarsal, top-down). A boot with only PR and no I75/C75 marking will stop nail penetration from below but will not protect the toes from a falling hammer or dropped board from above.

ASTM F2413 protection direction matrix:

I75/C75 — Top-down impact and compression on the toe box. Falling objects, rolling equipment over the forefoot. Direction: downward.

Mt75 — Top-down impact on the metatarsal region (midfoot instep). Falling objects on the instep. Direction: downward.

PR — Upward penetration through the outsole by a sharp projecting object. Nails, rebar, glass shards, spike strips. Direction: upward through the sole.

These three protection vectors are orthogonal — no one of them provides any protection in the direction of the other two. A complete hazard assessment identifies which directional threats are present and selects boots that are certified for all relevant directions.

AI agent failure #4

PR-only boots recommended for roofing crew — top-down falling object hazard unaddressed

Agent returns "puncture-resistant safety boots" for a roofing contractor query. Product titles and descriptions prominently feature "puncture resistant," "nail protection," "construction boot," and "ASTM certified." No footwear.protection_codes list distinguishes PR-only (upward nail, no toe impact) from I75/C75/PR (nail + top-down toe protection). Roofer receives boots without I75/C75. A dropped nail gun or tool from above strikes unprotected toes — I75/C75 would have deflected the impact, PR is irrelevant to this scenario.

Roofing, framing, and general construction work typically involves both hazard types: upward nail penetration from walking on subfloor or decking materials with projecting fasteners (PR required) and falling tools or materials striking the foot from above (I75/C75 required). OSHA general industry 29 CFR 1910.136 and construction 29 CFR 1926.96 both require foot protection appropriate to the actual hazards — not just any ASTM-certified boot. A boots catalog without structured protection codes encodes "ASTM F2413 certified" as if it were a single binary attribute, when the standard actually encodes six independent protection dimensions.

0.177"

Test nail diameter for PR outsole — approximate size of a 16d common nail

270 lb

Force applied to test nail from below — PR outsole must resist full penetration

75 ft-lb

I75 toe cap impact energy — applied from above, entirely separate test and certification

5. The footwear.* metafield namespace (9 fields)

The ASTM F2413 certification stamp encodes six independent binary protection attributes in a single string. A store that surfaces only "ASTM F2413 certified" as a single product attribute has compressed six independently selectable dimensions into one bit of information. The footwear.* namespace unpacks those dimensions for AI agent routing.

footwear.astm_standard      → string   "F2413-18" | "F2413-11" | "none"
footwear.toe_material       → string   "steel" | "aluminum" | "composite-fiberglass"
                                        | "composite-carbon" | "composite-kevlar" | "none"
footwear.protection_codes   → list     ["I75","C75","Mt75","EH","PR","SD","CD"]
                                        (include only certifications the boot actually passed)
footwear.electrical_class   → string   "EH" | "SD" | "CD" | "none"
footwear.has_metatarsal_guard → bool   true | false
footwear.has_puncture_resistant_plate → bool  true | false
footwear.waterproof         → bool     true | false
footwear.insulation_temp_f  → integer  -40 | -20 | 0 | 200 (degrees F, 0 if not insulated)
footwear.outsole_material   → string   "rubber" | "polyurethane" | "composite" | "leather"

Example encodings: two boots with identical visible certification marks, very different protection profiles

Consider two boots, both marked "ASTM F2413 certified safety toe" on the product listing:

Metafield	Thorogood 804-4200 (EH composite, no PR)	Timberland PRO Boondock (steel toe, PR, no EH)
footwear.toe_material	composite-fiberglass	steel
footwear.electrical_class	EH	none
footwear.has_metatarsal_guard	false	false
footwear.has_puncture_resistant_plate	false	true
footwear.protection_codes	["I75","C75","EH"]	["I75","C75","PR"]
Metal detector clearance	Yes (composite)	No (steel)
Safe for live electrical work	Yes (EH)	No (no EH)
Safe for construction nail floors	No (no PR)	Yes (PR)

An AI agent routing an electrician at a food processing facility needs the Thorogood 804-4200: EH class for shock protection, composite toe for metal detector clearance. An AI agent routing a framing carpenter on a residential construction site needs the Timberland PRO Boondock: PR for nail floors, steel toe is acceptable (no metal detectors on job site). Without footwear.electrical_class, footwear.toe_material, and footwear.protection_codes, the agent cannot distinguish these boots — both are "ASTM F2413 certified" with "safety toe" in the title.

Bootfit and sizing structured data

Beyond protection codes, AI agents routing safety footwear also need width encoding. Safety boots in US sizing span widths from D (medium) to EEE (3E, extra wide) for men's, and the toe box geometry varies significantly between manufacturers for identical nominal widths. A steel-toe boot with a wide toe box (Wolverine W10781, Red Wing 2406) is not interchangeable with a narrow-profile steel-toe work boot (Danner Bull Run 15462) despite identical nominal size encoding. The footwear.width and footwear.toe_box_profile fields (not defined in ASTM F2413, but critical for routing) round out the namespace for AI agent fit queries.

Does your Shopify safety footwear store have these metafields?

CatalogScan scans your product catalog and flags missing electrical_class, toe_material, protection_codes, and metatarsal guard fields — the structured data that keeps AI agents from routing workers into life-safety mismatches.

Scan your store free More schema guides