Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
International Hand Protection Standards
International Cut StandardsFactors Influencing Cut Resistance
Overview of Different Cut Standards
Changes to ANSI/ISEA and EN 388 Cut Standards Under Review
• What are the changes?• Why are they being considered?• When will they come into effect?
Factors Influencing Cut Resistance
Is this a high performance material? (Opt for Kevlar® over cotton or leather.)
What is the base weight of the glove material? (Select gloves with a higher base weight.)
Is the glove coated? (i.e. polyurethane, PVC, latex, micropore nitrile.) Does the coating provide additional cut resistance?
What is the cut level of the gloves? Is it an ANSI, CE, or ISO rating?
Are the gloves abrasion-resistant? What is the level of abrasion resistance they provide?
How was the glove constructed?(i.e. Type of fabric and yarn used.)
Consider the following additional factors:• Loop-out terry vs. string knit• Dots/type of coating/leather palms • Zonal reinforcements • Sizing and fit• Possibility of contamination
Selecting Cut-Resistant Gloves? Ask Yourself…
Comparing Cut Resistance and Glove Performance
Overview of Different Cut StandardsStandards usually refer to the rating given to the product tested. The levels (and what they signify) differ depending on the method used for the testing.
ASTM F1790-97 • CPPT machine determines cut resistance of different materials• Designates ANSI/ISEA cut levels• Original testing method
ASTM F1790-05 • TDM-100 machine measures level of cut resistance• Established in 2005 as improvement to previous method
EN388-2003 • Administered using Coupe Test machine• Standard European method for measuring cut resistance
ISO 13997 • Designed as global testing standard using TDM-100 machine
Determining Cut Resistance: ANSI/ISEA 105ANSI (American National Standards Institute / ISEA (International Safety Equipment Association) 105 Standard
• US standard only (not used internationally)• Determines mechanical, chemical, and thermal properties, as well as dexterity• Uses numeric performance levels to establish specific properties• Uses a mix of ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) and EN
(European Norm) approaches
EN388 (European Norm)
• Standard method of testing in European Union
• Used internationally (even though it’s a European standard)
• Government mandated
• Gloves are categorized by level (based on mechanical performance)
ANSI/ISEA 105 vs. EN388 Standards
• Note: The levels designated by the two standards are not equivalent• Different testing machines and methods are used to determine glove performance
Test methods are not the same! Three different cut test methods = three different testing machineswith three different kinds of results
ANSI / ISEA 105 EN 388 EN 388
US US, INTERNATIONAL EN 388
Equipment used for ASTM and ISO Testing
• Mandatory to use new blade for each cut• Calculates cut resistance via load vs. reference distance• Determined based on the performance of the blade with a
control (such as neoprene) before and after the test is administered
Equipment Used for EN388 Testing
• Unlike with ASTM and ISO testing, the same blade can be used for multiple tests
• Amount of cut resistance is determined by a ratio of the performance of the sample to the performance of the control fabric (typically cotton canvas)
• ISO 13997 is the recommended machine for testing products above level 4
Key Takeaways: ANSI Cut Level 4 vs. CE Level 4• Testing methods and cut performance standards are completely different• Different equipment is used to administer each test• Therefore, ANSI Cut Level 4 and CE Level 4 don’t mean the same thing.
Cut levels are only equivalent if all factors involved in the testing are the exact same.
Where is Each Standard Used?
North American Standard: Thermal Resistance
ASTM F1060: Testing standard for determining the thermal protective performance of gloves upon contact with hot surfaces.
• Calculates a product’s conductive heat resistance• Indicates the thermal insulation properties of a glove when it touches hot surfaces
Other Critical Test Method Standards
North American Standard: Abrasion Resistance ASTM D3389: Testing standard used to calculate the abrasion resistance of coated fabrics• Using the Taber Rotary Platform (Double-Head Method), this test measures the
number of cycles it takes the wear through the coating (i.e. the first time the fabric is visible).
ASTM D3884: Standard guide for determining the abrasion resistance of textile fabrics• Determines the number of cycles it takes to wear through the fabric (i.e. when the
first piece of thread or yarn breaks) using the Double-Head Method on the Taber Rotary Platform
North American Standard: Abrasion Resistance The fabric is rubbed against the abrasive material on the testing machine until it wears through.
Taber Abrasion – ANSI / ISEA 105
Martindale Abrasion – EN 388
Changes to Cut Standards Under Review
• What are the changes?• Why are they being considered?• When will they come into
effect?
ANSI/ISEA: What’s Prompting These Changes?• To incorporate new yarn technologies, applications, and glove design
methods
• Changes would also help standardize the criteria used for testing on an international scale
• According to the International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA) website, the ISEA committee is currently seeking public input on the drafted revisions to its voluntary standard for hand protection selection.
• Higher consistency with other international testing standards
The draft revision can be located at: https://safetyequipment.org/isea-announces-public-review-for-high-visibility-apparel-hand-protection-selection-standards/
ANSI/ISEA: Main Changes (Pending Review)The majority of the proposed changes involve cut-resistance testing and classification.
Recommended changes include:
• Using a single testing method for more reliable ratings overall
• More classification levels for increased accuracy in test results and safety
• Addition of a needlestick puncture test for increased level of protection against puncture threats
Contact the ISEA at 703-525-1695 for additional questions.
EN 388: What’s Prompting These Changes?• Testing criteria requires review due to inconsistencies with attempts to reproduce
results (especially with the cut and abrasion aspects)• ISO 13997 TDM test has been recently found to be more reliable than the Coupe
test due to the issue of blade dulling affecting results• Currently, the Coupe test method will been upheld to ensure continuity of
information for the next few years• During the next revision cycle, the Coupe test will likely become obsolete • New impact protection test will also be added
EN 388: Main Changes (Pending Review)• Most significant change: ISO 13997 (TDM) cut test as preferred testing method
• Last six levels will match the ANSI/ISEA 105 levels for increased consistency
• Test results will still be calculated in Newtons (as opposed to grams)
• To minimize confusion with the Coupe test method, levels established using the TDM method will be categorized from A to F
• To account for blade dullness, the Coupe test will be modified
• A different kind of abrasive paper will be used for the testing
• A new impact protection aspect will also be included in the testing
Incorporation of Changes Into MarkingsExample of marking for the mechanical risks: prEN 388
Timeline for Changes (Upon Approval)ANSI/ISEA 105 • Recommended changes are currently under consideration• Additional changes may apply• December committee meeting will determine whether or not the changes will
be approved• If accepted, the changes will become part of the standard testing process during
the 2016 revision
EN388 • A round of votes has already been cast regarding the aforementioned EN388
changes• A final ballot will take place during the latter part of 2015• In late 2015 or early 2016, revisions will become official• Until the new standard becomes adopted by other countries, these changes will
only apply to those in the EU
Aftermath of the Changes• EN 388: a significant decrease in testing inconsistencies, and the removal of
inaccuracies caused by blade dulling during the Coupe test
• Greater overall consistency between EN388 and ANSI/ISEA methods
• Using one piece of equipment (TDM) to conduct cut testing will limit confusion regarding glove performance in the international market
• Additional opportunities for education and growth within the glove industry
• Improved reproducibility of test results and a higher granularity of cut levels will encourage more innovation within both the yarn and glove domains
