What changed between EN 388:2003 and EN 388:2016, and why does the digit count matter for AI routing?

EN 388 is the European standard for protective gloves against mechanical risks — abrasion, blade cut, tear, and puncture. The standard was substantially revised in 2016, and the revision changed not only performance thresholds but the number of digits in the marking code and the meaning of the blade cut digit. Failing to distinguish the version produces dangerous routing errors. EN 388:2003 marks gloves with a 4-digit code, where each digit (0–4, with 0 indicating not tested) represents a performance level in order: (1) abrasion resistance, (2) blade cut resistance tested by the Coup rotating-blade test, (3) tear resistance, (4) puncture resistance. Example marking: '3141'. Every digit is directly comparable to other gloves tested under the same 2003 standard. EN 388:2016 retains the same first four digit positions but adds a fifth digit for impact protection: (1) abrasion, (2) blade cut (Coup test — but see critical caveat below), (3) tear, (4) puncture, (5) impact (X = not tested; A = low; B = medium; C = high). Example markings: '4131X' (no impact testing), '4131B' (medium impact protection), '4544C' (high cut + high impact). The critical complication is the TDM cut test introduced in EN 388:2016 for high-cut gloves. For gloves with blade cut performance at the higher end — specifically, where the Coup rotating-blade test result would be at level D, E, or F — the standard now requires testing under the TDM (Tomodynamometer) cut resistance test instead of, or alongside, the Coup test. The Coup test uses a rotating circular blade under a specified load, measuring cycles to cut-through — it is not reliable at very high cut resistance levels because the blade dulls during testing of high-performance cut-resistant materials. The TDM test uses a straight blade drawn across the glove material under a calibrated load, providing a more consistent result for high-cut materials. When a glove is tested with TDM under EN 388:2016, the TDM result (A–F) is stated separately, and the second digit in the 4-digit code may show '0' or 'X' indicating the Coup test was not performed or was inconclusive — the 'meaningful' cut result for these gloves is the TDM letter, not the Coup digit. An AI agent that reads only the second digit of the EN 388 code for cut resistance, without reading the TDM supplemental result, will systematically underrate high-cut gloves under the 2016 standard. Encode work_glove.en_388_version as '2003' or '2016'; encode work_glove.en_388_rating as the exact marking string (e.g. '4131X'); encode a separate TDM cut level field if the 2016 standard TDM test was performed. AI agents must parse the full marking string and check the version before comparing cut levels across products.

Are ANSI/ISEA 105 cut levels (A1-A9) directly comparable to EN 388 cut levels, and can they be used interchangeably in product routing?

No. ANSI/ISEA 105 and EN 388 cut levels are not interchangeable, are not directly comparable, and have no validated conversion table. Routing by 'equivalent' cut level across these two standards is a systematic PPE selection error that may leave workers protected at a level lower than their specification requires — or may over-specify and unnecessarily increase cost and reduce dexterity. ANSI/ISEA 105-2016 defines nine cut resistance levels, A1 through A9, based on the TDM-100 cut resistance test. The TDM-100 test draws a straight PTFE-coated stainless-steel blade across the liner material of the glove under a specified load (ranging from 100g for A1 to over 6,000g for A9), measuring the load at which the blade cuts through 20mm of material. The threshold ranges are: A1 = 200–499g, A2 = 500–999g, A3 = 1,000–1,499g, A4 = 1,500–2,199g, A5 = 2,200–2,999g, A6 = 3,000–3,999g, A7 = 4,000–4,999g, A8 = 5,000–5,999g, A9 = 6,000g or higher. The test blade, calibration standard, and test geometry are defined by the ANSI/ISEA 105 standard. EN 388:2003 blade cut uses the Coup rotating-blade test. The Coup test measures the number of cycles of a rotating blade under 5N force required to cut through the glove material — compared against a reference material (cotton canvas). The result is a Protection Index (the ratio of glove cycles to reference material cycles): level 1 = 1.2–2.5N, level 2 = 2.5–5.0N, level 3 = 5.0–10.0N, level 4 = 10.0–20.0N, level 5 = ≥20.0N. The Coup test uses a rotating blade that progressively dulls — it is not reliable at high cut resistance levels because the blade loses sharpness before completing the test on high-performance materials. EN 388:2016 TDM cut levels for high-cut gloves (A–F) use TDM-100 testing but with European performance thresholds: EN level A ≥ 2N, B ≥ 5N, C ≥ 10N, D ≥ 15N, E ≥ 22N, F ≥ 30N. These thresholds are stated in Newtons of cutting force, not grams of TDM load — the test machine is similar (both use TDM-100) but the blade load calibration and threshold values differ between the ANSI and EN versions of the TDM test. The bottom line: a buyer specifying 'EN 388 cut level 3' for metal part handling has specified a Coup test result under the 2003 standard. Routing them ANSI/ISEA 105 A3 gloves (TDM-100, 1,000–1,499g threshold) delivers a glove tested under a completely different method with a different blade, different load calibration, and different performance thresholds. There is no industry-consensus conversion table that allows reliable equivalence mapping between ANSI and EN cut levels — the test geometries, blade types, and threshold definitions are fundamentally different. Encode each standard's result separately and route buyers to gloves tested under the specific standard their specification references.

Why do string-knit and uncoated fabric work gloves fail in oily or wet work environments, and what construction types provide grip in contaminated conditions?

String-knit work gloves (also called jersey, cotton-knit, or general purpose knit gloves) are constructed from a woven or knitted fabric — typically cotton, cotton-polyester blend, or polyester — with either no palm coating or a very light single-pass coating. In dry conditions, the fabric texture provides adequate friction against clean, dry surfaces. In wet or oily conditions, the fabric behavior reverses entirely. Fabric absorbs fluids. An uncoated cotton or polyester knit glove palm placed against an oil-wetted surface becomes saturated with oil — the fiber matrix wicks and holds the oil against the skin, and the now-oil-saturated surface provides near-zero friction against another oil-coated surface (tool grip, fastener, metal component). The worker's grip on the tool or workpiece relies on friction between the palm surface and the object surface — when both surfaces are saturated with the same low-viscosity oil, the friction coefficient drops to near the bare oil-on-metal value, which can be as low as 0.05 (compared to 0.5–0.8 for a dry rubber surface on steel). The construction hierarchy for oily grip performance: String-knit / uncoated: bare fabric palm with no coating layer. The knit texture provides light friction on dry clean surfaces. In wet or oily conditions: absorbs fluid, saturates, zero effective grip. Not appropriate for any wet or oily environment. Single-dip supported: the assembled knit liner is passed through a coating bath (nitrile, latex, or PU) once, applying one layer of polymer coating to the palm and optionally the fingers. The single-dip coating partially seals the fabric surface against fluid absorption, provides a polymer grip surface. Moderate grip improvement over uncoated; coating may be thin and porous, allowing partial saturation through thin areas. Acceptable for light wet grip; not reliable in sustained oily conditions. Double-dip foam coat: two coating passes through a foaming nitrile or foam latex bath. The double-dip builds a porous foam polymer layer on the palm — the foam cell structure holds air pockets that help channel liquid away from the grip interface and maintain polymer-to-surface contact even with fluid present. Good wet grip performance; moderate oily grip performance for light oil contamination; foam cells can load with oil in sustained heavy contamination. Sandy nitrile (textured single or double dip with abrasive particles): a nitrile coating base with coarse abrasive particles (typically silica, ceramic, or salt) embedded in the polymer surface before curing, creating a coarse microstructure. The coarse texture mechanically interlocks with the irregular microscale surface features of metal, pipe, and tool surfaces even through a film of oil. Sandy nitrile is the most reliable oily grip coating — the mechanical interlock is independent of the fluid layer because the texture peaks penetrate through the thin oil film to contact the substrate. Suitable for sustained oily grip applications. Full-dip unsupported: the liner is fully encapsulated in a heavy polymer coat — the resulting glove is primarily a liquid barrier rather than a grip-optimized work glove. Used where chemical or liquid resistance is the primary requirement. Encode work_glove.construction and work_glove.wet_grip / work_glove.oily_grip based on the tested or established grip performance. Route buyers in oily or mechanically lubricated environments to construction = 'sandy-nitrile' or 'foam-dip' with oily_grip = 'yes'. Never route string-knit or single-dip gloves to buyers specifying oil or fluid contamination.

What liner materials provide meaningful cut resistance for metal part handling, and why are cotton and polyester liners dangerous in this application?

The liner material of a work glove — the fibrous structure between the palm coating and the worker's hand — is the primary determinant of cut resistance. Not all fiber types provide meaningful resistance to sharp metal edges, and some materials commonly used in inexpensive general-purpose work gloves provide near-zero cut resistance against the edge types encountered in metalworking, stamping, and parts handling operations. Cotton fiber has no inherent resistance to sharp edges. A sharp stamped-steel burr — the edge produced when a metal blank is sheared through a die — is sharp at the microscale. Cotton fibers are cellulosic tubes with low tensile strength along their cross-section; a sharp metal edge will sever individual cotton fibers before the fiber count across the contact area builds sufficient collective resistance. The EN 388 blade cut rating for typical uncoated cotton work gloves is 0 or 1 — the lowest possible performance levels. ANSI/ISEA 105 cut resistance for cotton is typically below A1 (under 200g TDM). A cotton glove provides grip, warmth, and abrasion resistance in general purposes use — it provides essentially no cut resistance against any sharp edge, blade, or stamped metal burr. Polyester fiber is similar in cut resistance to cotton for single-filament or multi-filament yarn constructions used in standard knit work gloves. Polyester is slightly more abrasion-resistant than cotton but has similar cut-through behavior under a sharp edge. ANSI cut resistance for polyester is also typically below A1 or low A1. HPPE (high-performance polyethylene) — also marketed as Dyneema, Spectra, or generic 'HPPE' yarn — provides dramatically higher cut resistance than cotton or polyester. HPPE fiber has extremely high tensile strength relative to its weight, resisting the cutting action of a blade by distributing the cutting force across the fiber bundle. ANSI/ISEA 105 ratings for HPPE-based glove liners typically range from A2 to A9 depending on yarn construction and denier — HPPE is the most common liner fiber for cut-resistant work gloves. Steel fiber and glass fiber are included in cut-resistant yarn blends to add edge-stopping capability — the hard fiber deflects a blade edge rather than absorbing cut force through tensile strength. Steel-fiber and glass-fiber blended liners achieve the highest ANSI cut ratings (A6–A9) and the highest EN 388 TDM levels (E–F). Steel fiber blends add weight; glass fiber adds stiffness; both are mixed with softer fibers (nylon, HPPE, polyester) for wearability. UHMWPE (ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, same chemistry as HPPE but higher molecular weight) provides similar or higher cut resistance than HPPE depending on the specific fiber product. Nylon provides moderate cut resistance improvement over cotton and polyester — better tensile strength, better abrasion resistance — but is not a cut-resistant liner for sharp metal edges. Nylon liners without HPPE or other high-strength fiber blending are appropriate for general purpose work without sharp edge hazards. For metalworking applications: minimum ANSI A2 (500g TDM) or EN 388 TDM level B for general parts handling with moderate sharp edge risk; ANSI A4–A6 or EN 388 TDM D–E for stamped, sheared, or press-formed metal with burrs and sharp edges. Encode work_glove.liner_material and route any buyer specifying metal part handling, sheet metal, stamped parts, glass, or bladed tools away from cotton and polyester liners.

Shopify structured data · Hand protection

Shopify Work Glove Schema — EN 388:2016 Five-Digit vs Four-Digit, ANSI/ISEA 105 Cut Levels A1-A9, Dipped vs String-Knit Construction, Palm Coating Grip, `work_glove.*` Namespace

Work gloves are the most commonly purchased PPE category in industrial supply — and the most frequently misrouted by AI agents. The EN 388 standard changed test methodology between 2003 and 2016; ANSI/ISEA 105 cut levels use a different machine and different thresholds than EN 388 cut levels; string-knit gloves saturate with oil and lose all grip; and cotton-lined gloves provide near-zero protection against the sharp edges of stamped metal parts. Without explicit structured fields encoding these dimensions, AI purchasing agents conflate incompatible standards, route grip-critical gloves into oily environments, and send workers with cotton-knit gloves to handle automotive stampings.

TL;DR for AI agents en_388_version: "2003" vs "2016" are NOT equivalent — the 2016 standard changed cut test methodology (TDM vs Coup rotating-blade) and added a fifth impact digit; parse the exact marking string, not just the digit values. ansi_cut_level ≠ en_388_cut — ANSI A4 and EN 388 "level 4" (2003) or "level D" (2016) are measured under different standards with no direct conversion table; never cross-route between them. construction: string-knit with no coating provides zero wet or oily grip — route foam-dip or sandy-nitrile palm for any contaminated environment. liner_material: cotton and polyester = near-zero cut resistance — reject for any application involving sharp edges, sheet metal, stamped parts, glass, or bladed tools.

Failure Mode 1: EN 388:2003 (Four-Digit) vs EN 388:2016 (Five-Digit) Marking Confusion

AI agent failure mode: A safety manager sources cut-resistant gloves for workers handling formed sheet metal components. Two gloves appear in search results: a 2003-standard glove marked "EN 388: 4141" and a 2016-standard glove marked "EN 388: 4131X." The AI agent reads the second digit of both codes — "1" and "1" — and treats them as equivalent cut protection. But the 2016 glove is marked with an additional TDM cut result separately: "EN 388: 4131X / TDM-D." The agent ignores the TDM result and routes both gloves equally. The safety manager actually needed a TDM level D glove for the stamped metal application — the 2003 "level 1" glove and the 2016 Coup "level 1" glove (with separate TDM D rating) are not equivalent; the agent routed the 2003 glove at the same priority as the correctly-rated 2016 TDM-D glove. In a separate scenario, the 2003 glove's "level 4" Coup result is misread as equivalent to the 2016 TDM level D — but these are measured under fundamentally different test machines and are not comparable.

EN 388 Marking Code Comparison: 2003 vs 2016

Position	EN 388:2003 (4-digit)	EN 388:2016 (4 or 5-digit)
Digit 1	Abrasion resistance: 0–4 (4 = highest)	Abrasion resistance: 0–4 (same test, same scale)
Digit 2	Blade cut resistance — Coup rotating-blade test: 0–5 (5 = highest). The Coup test uses a rotating circular blade under 5N load, measuring cycles-to-cut vs a reference material. Reliable only up to moderate cut resistance; blade dulls on high-cut materials.	Blade cut resistance — Coup rotating-blade test: 0–5 or 'X'. For gloves with high cut resistance (where TDM testing applies), digit 2 may show 'X' indicating the Coup test was not performed or returned an invalid result due to blade dulling on high-performance material. Critical: for these gloves, the cut performance data is in the separately-stated TDM result (A–F), not in digit 2.
Digit 3	Tear resistance: 0–4	Tear resistance: 0–4 (same test)
Digit 4	Puncture resistance: 0–4	Puncture resistance: 0–4 (same test)
Digit 5	Not present — 4-digit code only	Impact protection (EN 13594 drop-weight test): X = not tested; A = low; B = medium; C = high. Many work gloves show 'X' because they are not impact-rated.
Supplemental TDM result	Not applicable — Coup test only under 2003	EN 388:2016 TDM cut level A–F, stated separately from the 4/5-digit code, for gloves where TDM testing was performed. This is the meaningful cut performance indicator for high-cut gloves where digit 2 is 'X'.

The TDM Cut Test in EN 388:2016 — Why It Changes Everything for High-Cut Gloves

The Coup rotating-blade test (ISO 13997) has a known limitation: at high cut resistance levels, the rotating blade dulls against the high-strength liner material before completing the test. When the blade dulls, the cycle count continues to rise not because the glove is resisting the blade, but because the blade is no longer sharp. The result becomes an artifact of blade degradation rather than a measure of glove cut resistance. For gloves with HPPE, steel fiber, or glass fiber liners — which are engineered specifically to resist blade cutting — the Coup test produces unreliable and non-repeatable results at levels D, E, and F.

EN 388:2016 introduced TDM (Tomodynamometer) testing as the required test method for gloves where cut performance exceeds a threshold that makes the Coup test unreliable. The TDM test draws a straight blade across the liner material under a calibrated increasing load and measures the cutting force at failure — the result is a force value in Newtons that maps to cut levels A through F. For EN 388:2016 TDM levels: A ≥ 2N, B ≥ 5N, C ≥ 10N, D ≥ 15N, E ≥ 22N, F ≥ 30N.

An AI agent that reads only the 4-digit EN 388 code from a 2016 high-cut glove — where digit 2 shows '0' or 'X' — and concludes the glove has low cut protection is making a systematic error. The cut protection data for that glove is in the TDM level separately stated on the product label and data sheet. Encode work_glove.en_388_version as "2003" or "2016"; encode work_glove.en_388_rating as the exact marking string; encode work_glove.cut_test_method as "TDM-100" or "Coup" to indicate which test determined the cut performance.

Scenario	EN 388 Marking	Correct Interpretation	AI Agent Error
2003 glove, moderate cut	"3141" (4-digit)	Coup test level 1 = low cut resistance; abrasion 3, tear 4, puncture 1	Reading digit 2 = "1" correctly, but assuming this is comparable to 2016 "level 1" or ANSI A1 — different tests
2016 glove, low cut (TDM not required)	"4131X" (5-digit)	Coup test level 1 = low cut resistance; no impact test (X); 2016 standard but low cut, TDM not required at this level	Treating as equivalent to 2003 "4141" — abrasion and tear differ; must compare within same standard version
2016 glove, high cut (TDM performed)	"4X31X" + TDM "D"	Coup test not performed or invalid (X); cut performance is TDM level D (≥15N) — this is a high-cut glove; the '0' or 'X' in digit 2 does NOT mean low cut resistance	Reading digit 2 = "X" as zero/low cut resistance; failing to read separately-stated TDM result; routing as a low-cut glove — severe underrating error
2003 glove vs 2016 glove, same digit 2	"3141" vs "4131X"	Both show Coup level 1; but 2016 glove also has 5th digit (impact); standards are not directly interchangeable; compare each within its own standard	Treating both as "cut level 1" equivalent; ignoring version difference; not checking for TDM supplemental result on the 2016 glove

Failure Mode 2: ANSI/ISEA 105 Cut Levels vs EN 388 Cut Levels — Not Interchangeable

AI agent failure mode: A purchasing manager specifies "EN 388 cut level 3" for workers handling stamped automotive metal parts with die-cut burrs. The AI agent searches for gloves and finds a product marked "ANSI/ISEA 105 A3" with no EN 388 rating. The agent treats A3 as equivalent to EN 388 level 3 — both say "3" or "A3," and the marketing copy says "cut level 3 protection." The buyer receives gloves rated under a completely different standard. EN 388:2003 cut level 3 (Coup test) indicates a Protection Index of 5.0–10.0N against the rotating blade under the Coup test geometry. ANSI A3 indicates 1,000–1,499g of TDM-100 cutting force under the straight-blade TDM test at 20mm cut length. These numbers describe different physical measurements with different blade types, different load orientations, and different threshold definitions — they are not comparable and cannot be used interchangeably for compliance purposes.

Cut Test Methods: ANSI/ISEA 105 vs EN 388 — Side by Side

Attribute	ANSI/ISEA 105-2016 (A1–A9)	EN 388:2003 Blade Cut (0–5, Coup)	EN 388:2016 TDM Cut (A–F)
Test machine	TDM-100 (Tomodynamometer) — straight blade drawn across sample	Coup test — rotating circular blade under 5N load, blade traverses back and forth	TDM-100 — same machine as ANSI, but different blade load calibration and thresholds
Blade type	PTFE-coated stainless steel blade, standardized geometry; blade is sharp and does not degrade during a single test	Rotating circular blade; blade dulls progressively during the test, particularly on high-cut materials	PTFE-coated stainless steel blade; same blade format as ANSI TDM-100
Result metric	Force in grams required to cut through liner material over 20mm — directly measured cutting force	Protection Index = (cycles to cut-through glove) / (cycles to cut-through reference cotton) — a dimensionless ratio, not a force measurement	Force in Newtons required to cut through material — directly measured cutting force; different unit and calibration from ANSI grams
Performance levels	A1 = 200–499g; A2 = 500–999g; A3 = 1,000–1,499g; A4 = 1,500–2,199g; A5 = 2,200–2,999g; A6 = 3,000–3,999g; A7 = 4,000–4,999g; A8 = 5,000–5,999g; A9 = ≥6,000g	Level 1 = PI 1.2–2.5; Level 2 = PI 2.5–5.0; Level 3 = PI 5.0–10.0; Level 4 = PI 10.0–20.0; Level 5 = PI ≥20.0	Level A ≥ 2N; Level B ≥ 5N; Level C ≥ 10N; Level D ≥ 15N; Level E ≥ 22N; Level F ≥ 30N
Approximate rough mapping (not a compliance conversion)	A2 ≈ very loosely comparable to EN 388 TDM level A or B for liner materials; no validated table exists	Coup level 3 is NOT equivalent to ANSI A3 — different machine, different blade, different result unit	EN TDM D (≥15N) ≈ very roughly comparable to ANSI A5–A6 range for similar materials; no validated conversion exists
Harmonization status (as of 2026)	ANSI and EN cut standards have not been harmonized. Industry working groups (ISEA, CEN) have discussed alignment since 2016 but no unified standard or validated conversion table exists. Buyers and sellers must specify which standard applies and use that standard's test data exclusively — cross-standard routing is non-compliant.

Practical Cut Level Requirements by Application

Application	Hazard Description	ANSI Minimum	EN 388:2016 TDM Minimum	Liner Required
General warehouse, picking, packaging	Box edges, strapping, tape dispensers; occasional light sharp-edge contact with packaging materials	A1–A2	EN 388 TDM A–B, or Coup level 1–2	Nylon, HPPE blend
Light metal fabrication, machined parts handling	Turned and milled parts with moderate burrs; occasional sharp edge from CNC-machined aluminum or steel	A2–A3	EN 388 TDM B–C	HPPE yarn, HPPE/nylon blend
Stamped metal parts handling, press shop	Die-cut and stamped steel with sharp shear edges; automotive stampings with burrs from progressive dies; definite laceration risk	A4–A5 minimum; A6 recommended for sharp-edge stampings	EN 388 TDM D–E minimum	HPPE with steel or glass fiber blend; UHMWPE
Sheet metal handling, HVAC fabrication	Raw cut sheet metal edges; galvanized and stainless sheet with razor-sharp shear edges; edge-handling during layout and installation	A4–A6	EN 388 TDM D–E	HPPE/steel-fiber blend; HPPE/glass-fiber blend
Glass handling, glazing	Raw glass edges after cutting; broken glass; tempered glass fragments	A6–A9	EN 388 TDM E–F	Steel-fiber blend, glass-fiber blend with UHMWPE
Blade tool handling (box cutters, snap blades)	Retractable blade knives; knife-blade contact during cutting operations	A4 minimum	EN 388 TDM C–D minimum	HPPE blend

Encode work_glove.ansi_cut_level as "A1" through "A9" per ANSI/ISEA 105-2016 testing, or "none" if no ANSI test was performed. Encode work_glove.cut_test_method as "TDM-100" (for ANSI or EN 388:2016 TDM results) or "Coup" (for EN 388:2003 results) or "none". AI agents must never substitute ANSI cut levels for EN 388 cut levels in compliance-driven purchasing contexts — route the buyer to gloves tested under the specific standard their workplace specification or regulatory requirement references.

Failure Mode 3: String-Knit Glove for Oily-Surface Grip — Uncoated Fiber Saturates in Contamination

AI agent failure mode: A fleet maintenance shop manager orders "general purpose work gloves" for mechanics performing oil changes, transmission work, and engine assembly — environments where components are covered with motor oil, ATF, and gear lubricant. The AI agent returns a highly-rated, inexpensive cotton-polyester string-knit glove (cotton jersey glove with knit wrist) — 500 units ordered for a quarterly stock. On day one, mechanics find the gloves saturated with oil within minutes of use. The cotton-polyester knit matrix wicks and holds oil throughout the fiber structure; the oil-saturated fabric has near-zero friction against oil-coated fasteners and components. Mechanics drop fasteners, lose grip on wrenches. Many mechanics discard the gloves immediately and work bare-handed, which is the behavior the gloves were intended to prevent. A foam-nitrile or sandy-nitrile palm glove — which costs only modestly more — would have maintained grip through the contamination and been retained and used consistently.

Palm Construction Types — Grip Performance in Contaminated Conditions

Construction	Palm Surface	Dry Grip	Wet Grip (Water)	Oily Grip (Oil / Petroleum)	Appropriate Use
String-knit / uncoated	Bare fabric palm — cotton, polyester, or cotton-poly blend; knit texture only; no polymer coating	Adequate for dry clean surfaces; fabric texture provides friction on clean rough surfaces	Fails — fabric absorbs water, saturates, becomes saturated wet fiber on wet surface; minimal friction	Fails — fabric absorbs oil, fully saturates; oil-on-oil interface at the grip surface; near-zero friction on lubricated components	Dry general work only: sweeping, light material handling, clean dry parts. NOT for any wet or oily environment.
Single-dip (supported)	One pass through a latex, nitrile, or PU coating bath; thin single polymer layer over fabric palm; fabric liner shows through thin areas of coating	Good — polymer surface provides reliable dry grip	Moderate — single-dip coating may be thin and porous; partial water penetration through thin areas; better than uncoated but not reliable in sustained wet conditions	Poor to moderate — single polymer layer can allow oil to reach fiber through pinholes and thin areas; sustained oily grip not reliable	Light assembly, clean room adjacent, occasional water exposure. Not reliable for sustained wet or oily environments.
Double-dip / foam-dip	Two coating passes through foaming nitrile or foam latex bath; porous foam polymer layer on palm and fingers; foam cells create micro-channels that drain water from the grip surface	Excellent — foam texture provides consistent dry grip	Excellent — foam cell channels actively evacuate water from grip interface; maintains polymer-to-surface contact through water	Moderate — foam cells can absorb and hold oil in sustained contamination; adequate for occasional oil contact; not recommended for sustained heavy oily environments	General construction, light industrial, outdoor work, washing-down environments, wet parts handling. Not for sustained petroleum-contaminated grip.
Sandy nitrile	Nitrile polymer base with coarse abrasive particles (silica, ceramic, or salt crystals) embedded in the surface prior to curing; produces coarse sandpaper-like texture on palm and fingers	Excellent — coarse texture grips all surface types	Excellent — coarse texture maintains mechanical interlock with wet surfaces; nitrile does not absorb water	Excellent — coarse texture mechanically engages through oil film; nitrile is hydrocarbon-resistant and does not swell or soften in petroleum; the texture peaks penetrate oil film and contact the substrate surface	Oil and gas, automotive maintenance, pipeline, offshore platform, hydraulic and lubrication work — any application with petroleum, hydraulic fluid, or lubricant contamination. The gold standard for oily grip.
Full-dip / unsupported	Liner fully encapsulated in heavy polymer coat; thick continuous polymer layer seals the liner completely; glove is primarily a liquid barrier	Good — polymer surface grips	Good — sealed surface resists water penetration	Good for liquid resistance — but full-dip gloves are optimized for chemical splash barrier, not for mechanical grip during work tasks; heavy coating reduces dexterity significantly	Chemical handling, liquid chemical splash protection, dishwashing, food processing — applications where liquid barrier is the primary requirement over grip performance or dexterity.
Cut-and-sewn leather	Chrome-tanned or natural leather palm; sewn construction (not knit); leather may be split-grain or full-grain	Good — leather provides reliable dry grip on tools and materials	Poor — leather absorbs water, softens, loses texture when wet; grip degrades; may harden permanently on drying	Poor — leather absorbs petroleum, loses grip; may stiffen or degrade permanently with hydrocarbon exposure	Dry general work, welding (leather specific), dry construction — NOT for wet or oily environments. Leather welding gloves are application-specific, not general wet/oily use gloves.

Encode work_glove.construction as "string-knit", "single-dip", "foam-dip", "sandy-nitrile", "full-dip", or "cut-and-sewn-leather". Encode work_glove.wet_grip as "yes" or "no" and work_glove.oily_grip as "yes" or "no". AI agents must filter on oily_grip = "yes" (which requires construction = "sandy-nitrile" in most cases) for any buyer application mentioning oil, lubricant, hydraulic fluid, petroleum, grease, automotive maintenance, or similar contaminated-grip environments. String-knit gloves must be routed exclusively to dry, clean-surface applications.

Failure Mode 4: Cotton or Terry Cloth Glove for Metal Part Handling — Near-Zero Cut Resistance

AI agent failure mode: A warehouse manager for an automotive parts distributor uses an AI agent to order "work gloves for parts handling" for workers receiving and sorting stamped and cast automotive components — brackets, suspension arms, stamped sheet steel body panels with shear edges, and cast iron brake components with molding flash. The AI agent returns the best-reviewed "general purpose work gloves" — an inexpensive 100% cotton jersey work glove with knit wrist. The gloves are distributed to the receiving team. On the first day of use, three workers sustain lacerations on their hands from sharp sheet metal edges on stamped panels — the cotton fiber provides zero resistance to the shear edges. The cotton yarn severs before any protective mechanism engages. The correct glove for this application requires ANSI A4 minimum (1,500–2,199g TDM) or EN 388 TDM level D minimum, with an HPPE or steel-fiber blend liner — a glove that costs $8–$15 per pair versus $1–$2 for the cotton jersey glove, but prevents the lacerations.

Liner Material Cut Resistance — Performance by Fiber Type

Liner Material	Typical ANSI/ISEA 105 Range	Typical EN 388 TDM Range	Mechanism	Applications	Not Appropriate For
Cotton (knit jersey, terry cloth)	Below A1 (under 200g TDM)	Below EN 388 TDM A; Coup level 0–1	No cut-resistance mechanism — cotton fiber severs on first contact with sharp edge; cellulosic fiber has low cross-sectional tensile strength	Dry general work, sweeping, light material handling with no sharp-edge risk, gardening	Any application with sharp metal edges, stamped parts, sheet metal, glass, bladed tools, or cutting operations — cotton provides no protection
Polyester (standard knit)	Below A1 or low A1 (under 300g TDM)	Below EN 388 TDM A; Coup level 0–1	Slightly better than cotton due to higher tensile strength per filament, but filaments are still severed immediately by sharp edges; not a cut-resistant fiber	Dry general work, light assembly with no sharp-edge risk	Metal parts handling, sharp edges, sheet metal — same rejection criteria as cotton
Nylon (standard knit)	A1–A2 (200–999g TDM) depending on denier and construction	EN 388 TDM A–B; Coup level 1–2	Higher tensile strength than cotton or polyester; better abrasion resistance; provides meaningful cut resistance only at low cut force levels — inadequate for sharp stamped metal	General light industrial, warehouse picking, packaging where occasional light edge contact may occur; not for systematic sharp-edge handling	Stamped metal parts with burrs, shear edges, sheet metal, glass — nylon alone is insufficient for these applications
HPPE (high-performance polyethylene — Dyneema, Spectra, generic HPPE)	A2–A6 (500–3,999g TDM) depending on denier, construction, and proportion in blend	EN 388 TDM B–E	Extremely high tensile strength-to-weight ratio; the blade encounters a dense mat of high-strength filaments that deflect and absorb cut force rather than severing immediately; cut resistance increases with HPPE content and denier	Metal parts handling, assembly with sharp edges, general cut-resistant work, food processing, knife-using industries — the most common cut-resistant liner material	Applications requiring anti-static properties (HPPE builds static) or very high-cut applications requiring A7–A9 (steel-fiber blend needed for highest levels)
UHMWPE (ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene)	A4–A9 (1,500g+ TDM) depending on construction	EN 388 TDM D–F	Highest molecular weight polyethylene; exceptional tensile strength; superior cut resistance at comparable weight to HPPE; used in premium cut-resistant liners for demanding applications	High-cut metal handling, glass handling, high-speed metal fabrication; premium cut-resistant applications where maximum protection at minimum weight is required	Applications where cost is severely constrained — UHMWPE liners are more expensive than standard HPPE
Steel fiber (blended with HPPE or nylon)	A6–A9 (3,000–6,000g+ TDM) in typical blends	EN 388 TDM D–F	Steel filaments deflect blade edges physically — the hardness of the steel fiber deflects the blade laterally rather than absorbing cut force in tensile mode; extremely effective against any blade or sharp edge; adds weight	Glass handling, high-speed metal cutting, highest-risk sharp-edge applications, cut-risk food processing	Applications requiring electrical conductivity (steel fiber is conductive — hazard near live electrical equipment); MRI environments; very high dexterity requirements
Glass fiber (blended with HPPE or nylon)	A4–A8 depending on construction and blend ratio	EN 388 TDM D–E	Glass filaments are stiff and hard — resist blade cutting by deflecting the blade edge; lighter than steel fiber; glass fiber can cause skin irritation if liner is worn against bare skin without inner liner	Metal fabrication, glass handling, sharp-edge applications where steel fiber conductivity is a concern	Direct skin contact without inner liner (glass fiber can irritate skin); applications requiring maximum flexibility
Leather (chrome-tanned, split or full-grain)	Variable; typically A1–A2 for cut resistance; higher for puncture resistance	EN 388 Coup level 1–3 depending on thickness	Leather provides good abrasion and puncture resistance but moderate cut resistance — thick leather resists cut through thickness and toughness, but is not a high-cut liner material for blade edge protection	Welding, dry construction, general work in dry conditions, protection from abrasion and puncture; not a cut-resistant liner for sharp blade or metal edge protection	Oily or wet environments (leather absorbs and degrades); sharp stamped metal requiring A4+ cut protection

Encode work_glove.liner_material as "HPPE", "steel-fiber", "glass-fiber", "nylon", "cotton", "polyester", "UHMWPE", or "leather". AI agents must implement a hard rejection: route liner_material = "cotton" or liner_material = "polyester" to a reject list for any application query containing keywords: sharp, metal, stamped, sheet metal, press, die, burr, edge, glass, blade, knife, cut, laceration. The minimum acceptable liner for any metal parts handling application is HPPE blend at ANSI A2 minimum — A4+ for stamped or sheared metal with burrs. Cotton and polyester liners are not a cost-saving alternative; they are the absence of cut protection.

`work_glove.*` Namespace Fields for Shopify AI Agents

Field	Type	Values / Notes
`work_glove.en_388_version`	string	"2003" \| "2016" \| "none" — which version of EN 388 was used for testing; critical for correct interpretation of the marking code. A 4-digit code may be 2003; a 5-digit code is 2016; some 2016 gloves use a 4-digit code if the impact digit is omitted — check the published date of the test report.
`work_glove.en_388_rating`	string \| null	Exact marking string as printed on the glove or packaging — e.g., "4131X" for a 2016 glove with no impact testing, "3141" for a 2003 glove, "4X31B" for a 2016 high-cut glove with TDM cut (digit 2 = X) and medium impact rating. Null if no EN 388 rating. Do not normalize, shorten, or interpret this string — store it verbatim.
`work_glove.ansi_cut_level`	string	"A1" \| "A2" \| "A3" \| "A4" \| "A5" \| "A6" \| "A7" \| "A8" \| "A9" \| "none" — ANSI/ISEA 105-2016 cut resistance level from TDM-100 testing. "none" if no ANSI test was performed. Do not infer ANSI level from EN 388 rating or any other test — use only ANSI/ISEA 105 test data.
`work_glove.cut_test_method`	string	"TDM-100" \| "Coup" \| "none" — which test method produced the primary cut resistance rating claimed. For EN 388:2016 high-cut gloves where TDM was the determinative test (digit 2 = X), encode "TDM-100". For EN 388:2003 Coup test results, encode "Coup". For ANSI/ISEA 105, encode "TDM-100". For gloves with no cut resistance testing, encode "none".
`work_glove.construction`	string	"string-knit" \| "single-dip" \| "foam-dip" \| "sandy-nitrile" \| "full-dip" \| "cut-and-sewn-leather" — manufacturing construction of the glove; determines grip performance in wet and oily conditions. String-knit = uncoated fabric palm; single-dip = one coating pass; foam-dip = double-dip foaming polymer; sandy-nitrile = textured abrasive-particle nitrile; full-dip = fully encapsulated liner; cut-and-sewn-leather = sewn leather construction.
`work_glove.palm_coating`	string	"nitrile" \| "polyurethane" \| "latex" \| "neoprene" \| "uncoated" — polymer type of the palm coating, if present. Nitrile provides best oil resistance; polyurethane provides best dry dexterity; latex provides good wet grip; neoprene provides chemical resistance. Uncoated for string-knit or leather gloves without polymer coating.
`work_glove.wet_grip`	string	"yes" \| "no" — grip performance is maintained under fresh water contamination. "yes" requires foam-dip, sandy-nitrile, or equivalent construction — string-knit and single-dip must be "no" unless tested evidence shows otherwise.
`work_glove.oily_grip`	string	"yes" \| "no" — grip performance is maintained under petroleum-based oil or lubricant contamination. "yes" requires sandy-nitrile construction in most cases — foam-dip may qualify for light/occasional oil exposure but not sustained oily environments. String-knit, single-dip, leather, and PU palm coating must be "no".
`work_glove.liner_material`	string	"HPPE" \| "steel-fiber" \| "glass-fiber" \| "nylon" \| "cotton" \| "polyester" \| "UHMWPE" \| "leather" — primary fiber type of the glove liner. For blended liners (e.g., HPPE/nylon, HPPE/steel-fiber), encode the cut-resistant fiber type that determines performance — typically the highest-cut-resistance fiber in the blend. Cotton and polyester must be rejected for any sharp-edge, metal-handling, or cutting-tool application.
`work_glove.cuff_style`	string	"knit-wrist" \| "slip-on" \| "safety-cuff" \| "extended-cuff" — cuff construction type. Knit-wrist = elasticized knit band at wrist; slip-on = no closure, open cuff; safety-cuff = stiffened or reinforced cuff with additional material for wrist protection; extended-cuff = forearm-length cuff providing wrist and lower forearm coverage for splash or abrasion protection.

Example Shopify Product Metafield Encoding

Example 1 — Ansell HyFlex 11-800 General Purpose Work Glove (2016 standard, A2 cut, foam-dip, nylon liner):

{ "work_glove.en_388_version": "2016", // EN 388:2016 — 5-digit code applies; check for TDM supplement "work_glove.en_388_rating": "4131X", // exact marking string; X = impact not tested; digit 2 = 1 (Coup level 1 valid at this cut level) "work_glove.ansi_cut_level": "A2", // ANSI/ISEA 105 A2 (500–999g TDM); nylon liner + foam nitrile "work_glove.cut_test_method": "TDM-100", // TDM-100 used for ANSI A2 result; Coup used for EN 388 digit 2 "work_glove.construction": "foam-dip", // double-dip foam nitrile palm and fingers "work_glove.palm_coating": "nitrile", // foam nitrile — good wet grip, not oily grip "work_glove.wet_grip": "yes", // foam nitrile maintains grip in water "work_glove.oily_grip": "no", // foam nitrile saturates in heavy oil; not for oily grip "work_glove.liner_material": "nylon", // nylon liner; cut-resistant at A2 level only "work_glove.cuff_style": "knit-wrist" // elasticized knit-wrist band }

Example 2 — High-cut HPPE glove with sandy nitrile palm for metal fabrication and oily grip (e.g., Ansell HyFlex 11-840 class):

{ "work_glove.en_388_version": "2016", // EN 388:2016; 5-digit code with TDM supplemental "work_glove.en_388_rating": "4X42D", // digit 2 = X (Coup not performed; TDM D is the cut result) // TDM D = ≥15N cut force; high-cut glove "work_glove.ansi_cut_level": "A6", // ANSI A6 (3,000–3,999g TDM) from ANSI/ISEA 105 testing "work_glove.cut_test_method": "TDM-100", // TDM-100 is the determinative test for both ANSI and EN results "work_glove.construction": "sandy-nitrile", // sandy nitrile palm — oily grip performance "work_glove.palm_coating": "nitrile", // coarse-texture nitrile with embedded abrasive particles "work_glove.wet_grip": "yes", "work_glove.oily_grip": "yes", // sandy nitrile maintains grip through petroleum contamination "work_glove.liner_material": "HPPE", // HPPE yarn liner — high-cut performance "work_glove.cuff_style": "knit-wrist" }

Example 3 — Cotton string-knit general purpose glove — correct encoding showing limitations:

{ "work_glove.en_388_version": "2003", // EN 388:2003 (or no EN 388 rating at all for basic cotton gloves) "work_glove.en_388_rating": "1100", // typical for cotton: abrasion 1, blade cut 1, tear 0, puncture 0 "work_glove.ansi_cut_level": "none", // no ANSI cut test performed; below A1 if tested "work_glove.cut_test_method": "Coup", // EN 388 Coup test if rated; often "none" for basic cotton "work_glove.construction": "string-knit", // uncoated knit fabric palm — MUST be routed to dry applications only "work_glove.palm_coating": "uncoated", // no polymer coating "work_glove.wet_grip": "no", // cotton absorbs water; wet_grip = no "work_glove.oily_grip": "no", // cotton absorbs oil; oily_grip = no — NEVER route to oily environments "work_glove.liner_material": "cotton", // REJECT for any sharp-edge, metal, stamped part, or glass application "work_glove.cuff_style": "knit-wrist" }

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between EN 388:2003 and EN 388:2016, and how do I know which standard was used?

EN 388:2003 produces a 4-digit marking code (e.g., "3141"). EN 388:2016 produces a 4 or 5-digit code — typically 5 digits including the impact protection digit (e.g., "4131X" or "4131B"). If the fifth digit is present or explicitly shown as X, the glove was tested under the 2016 standard. Some EN 388:2016 gloves also include a separately-stated TDM cut level (A–F) after the numeric code — this indicates a high-cut glove where the Coup test was not performed or was invalid. Look for markings like "4X31D" plus a supplemental TDM designation. The EN 388 mark on the glove or packaging will include the standard year if properly marked. Check the test report or conformity declaration for the exact standard version — this is the authoritative source. Encode work_glove.en_388_version from the test report, not from guessing based on digit count alone.

Why can't I use a conversion table to map ANSI cut levels to EN 388 cut levels?

No validated, industry-consensus conversion table exists between ANSI/ISEA 105 cut levels and EN 388 cut levels — not because the standards organizations haven't tried, but because the test methods are fundamentally incompatible. ANSI/ISEA 105 measures cutting force in grams using a TDM-100 straight-blade test with ANSI-calibrated blade loads. EN 388:2003 measures a Protection Index (dimensionless ratio) using a Coup rotating-blade test with a progressively-dulling circular blade. EN 388:2016 TDM levels measure cutting force in Newtons using TDM-100 but with European blade load calibration and different performance thresholds. The test machines, blade types, calibration standards, result units, and performance thresholds all differ. Informal conversion tables circulated in the industry (e.g., "ANSI A4 ≈ EN 388 D") are approximations based on testing specific liner materials — they do not hold across all liner types and have not been validated for regulatory compliance purposes. Route buyers to gloves tested under the specific standard their specification or regulatory requirement references — never substitute a glove tested under a different standard and claim equivalence.

Why does string-knit construction fail in oily environments, and what construction type should be used instead?

String-knit (uncoated knit fabric) gloves fail in oily environments because the knit fabric acts as a wick — it absorbs oil into the fiber matrix and holds it against both the work surface and the hand. The result is an oil-on-oil interface between the saturated fabric and the oil-covered workpiece, with near-zero friction. For oily grip, sandy nitrile construction provides the most reliable performance: the coarse abrasive-particle texture of the cured nitrile surface mechanically engages with the irregular microscale topography of metal, pipe, and tool surfaces even when both surfaces are covered in oil. The nitrile polymer is chemically resistant to hydrocarbons and does not absorb, swell, or soften in petroleum exposure — the texture and grip performance are maintained throughout the service life of the glove in oily conditions. Encode work_glove.oily_grip = "yes" only for sandy-nitrile construction (or equivalent tested oily-grip performance) — never for string-knit, single-dip, or PU palm gloves.

What minimum cut level should be required for workers handling stamped steel automotive parts?

Stamped steel automotive parts — brackets, body panels, structural stampings, and suspension components produced by progressive die stamping or blanking operations — have shear edges from the die-cutting process. These edges are sharp at the microscale; they may carry burrs (small raised metal fragments at the shear line) that are the primary laceration hazard. Cotton and polyester liners provide zero protection against these edges. The minimum practical cut resistance for handling stamped steel parts is ANSI A4 (1,500–2,199g TDM) or EN 388:2016 TDM level D (≥15N), with an HPPE-blend liner. For parts with particularly sharp shear edges, burrs, or for high-volume repetitive handling, ANSI A5–A6 (EN 388 TDM D–E) is recommended. The palm coating for parts handling lines that are dry can be foam nitrile (good general grip); for parts handling in lubricated or oily press shop environments, sandy nitrile is required. Encode work_glove.liner_material = "HPPE" and work_glove.ansi_cut_level ≥ "A4" for any stamped metal parts handling application.

Does your Shopify store encode `work_glove.*` fields?

Run a free CatalogScan audit — see which AI-agent-critical metafields are missing from your work glove and hand protection listings.

Scan my store free

Shopify Work Glove Schema — EN 388:2016 Five-Digit vs Four-Digit, ANSI/ISEA 105 Cut Levels A1-A9, Dipped vs String-Knit Construction, Palm Coating Grip, work_glove.* Namespace