Glove PPE Selection: A Practical, Standards-Based Method for Getting It Right
Hand injuries are often treated as “unavoidable” because cuts, punctures, chemicals, and heat show up everywhere. In reality, most glove failures trace back to one of three problems: the wrong performance rating was chosen, the glove material was incompatible with the chemical or exposure conditions, or the glove was used beyond its real service life. OSHA is explicit that employers must select and require appropriate hand protection when hands are exposed to hazards such as cuts, punctures, chemical burns, and temperature extremes, and that selection must be based on performance characteristics relative to the task, conditions, duration, and hazards identified.
This article gives you a repeatable process to select gloves for mechanical and chemical hazards, explains the major rating systems, and shows how to use chemical compatibility and breakthrough data correctly.
The glove rating systems you will see in industry
ANSI/ISEA 105 (commonly used in the United States)
ANSI/ISEA 105 provides a classification framework for glove performance properties, including cut, abrasion, and puncture resistance, with results tied to standardized test methods and reported as performance levels.
Key takeaway: treat ANSI/ISEA 105 as your “mechanical hazard dashboard” for comparing gloves, then validate with task reality (sharp geometry, force, repetition, wet conditions, dexterity demands).
EN 388 (commonly used in Europe, frequently seen on global products)
EN 388 rates gloves for mechanical risks including abrasion, cut, tear, puncture, and in the updated version, an optional impact test marking.
Key takeaway: EN 388 is very useful for apples-to-apples comparisons, but you must understand which cut test is being used and what the puncture test does and does not represent (more on that below).
Mechanical protection: what the ratings actually mean
Cut resistance
For ANSI/ISEA 105, cut resistance is commonly reported as levels A1 through A9 based on the ASTM TDM cut test method (ASTM F2992). Higher levels indicate greater cut resistance.
For EN 388, cut resistance can be reported using ISO 13997 as letter levels A through F, where higher letters indicate higher resistance to cut under load.
Operational guidance:
Match the cut level to the hazard severity and frequency. Occasional contact with sharp edges is a different risk than repeated handling of burrs, stamped parts, or sheet metal.
Do not “overbuy” cut protection blindly. Higher cut protection often increases thickness, reduces dexterity, and may raise snag hazards around rotating equipment. The best glove is the one workers will actually wear correctly.
Puncture resistance (and the common misunderstanding)
Both ANSI and EN puncture tests are generally based on a blunt stylus probe puncture concept. That is relevant for many industrial puncture hazards, but it is not the same as needlestick protection from hypodermic needles.
Operational guidance:
If your puncture hazard involves wire, metal strapping, staples, or rough sharps, the blunt puncture rating is often meaningful.
If your puncture hazard involves needles (medical waste, labs, correctional settings), look for gloves tested to needlestick-specific methods (for example, ASTM F2878 is referenced in needlestick discussions under ANSI/ISEA 105 updates).
Abrasion resistance
Abrasion ratings matter because abrasion is what quietly destroys gloves before a “big event” occurs. ANSI abrasion classification is commonly tied to Taber abrasion-style testing methods, and higher levels generally indicate longer wear life.
Operational guidance:
If workers handle concrete, block, castings, pallet banding, or rough lumber all day, abrasion resistance often drives real-world glove longevity and therefore real-world protection.
Chemical resistance: penetration, permeation, degradation, and breakthrough
Chemical glove selection is where many programs fail because people rely on generic “nitrile is chemical resistant” logic. Chemical resistance has multiple mechanisms:
Penetration: chemical passes through holes, seams, pinholes, or defects.
Permeation: chemical diffuses through the glove material at the molecular level, even if the glove looks intact.
Degradation: changes in physical properties such as swelling, brittleness, softening, or cracking.
EN 374 explicitly uses these concepts (permeation, penetration, degradation) as the basis for chemical glove classification.
Breakthrough time and breakthrough rate, and why they matter
Breakthrough time is the elapsed time from initial contact to when permeation reaches a defined threshold. In chemical protective clothing selection practice, a commonly cited threshold is when permeation rate reaches 0.1 mg/m²/sec, at which point the glove is no longer considered to provide necessary protection for that scenario.
ASTM F739 is a widely used test method for measuring permeation through protective clothing materials (including gloves) and discusses breakthrough time and permeation rate as key measures used to compare materials for chemical protection selection.
Operational guidance:
Breakthrough time is not the same as “safe to wear for that long.” Real use includes flexing, abrasion, temperature, mixture effects, and intermittent splashes.
Permeation rate matters because “slow leakage” can still cause injury depending on toxicity, skin absorption potential, and duration.
A defensible glove selection process for any hazard
OSHA expects employers to assess hazards and select PPE suitable for the hazards identified, and for hand protection, to base selection on glove performance characteristics relative to tasks, conditions, duration, and hazards.
Use this structured process:
Define the task, not the job title
What is being handled, how sharp, how heavy, what force, what repetition, what grip demands.
What is the hand position, pinch points, and likely contact zones (fingertips, palm, back of hand).
Identify the hazard types and severity
Mechanical: cut, abrasion, puncture, crush, impact, vibration.
Chemical: splash, immersion, intermittent contact, contaminated surfaces, aerosols settling on gloves.
Thermal: contact heat, cold, hot work, steam.
Biological: bloodborne pathogens, microbiological agents (where applicable).
Determine exposure profile
Continuous contact vs intermittent.
Duration per exposure and total daily exposure.
Temperature and whether gloves will be wet, oily, or solvent-exposed (which can change grip and degrade polymers).
Select minimum performance levels
Use ANSI/ISEA 105 or EN 388 to set minimum cut, puncture, abrasion requirements for mechanical hazards.
For chemical hazards, require documented compatibility and breakthrough/permeation data for the specific chemical(s).
Address human factors
Dexterity, tactile sensitivity, grip, and fatigue.
Glove sizing, donning and doffing, and whether double-gloving is necessary.
Pilot and validate
Field trial with the actual work group.
Confirm no new hazards are introduced (snagging, reduced control, excessive sweating leading to noncompliance).
Document and train
Document the selection rationale, required ratings, limitations, and replacement triggers.
Train workers on “what failure looks like” and when to change gloves.
If chemicals are the hazard: a step-by-step compatibility method
When chemicals are involved, you want a process that is fast, repeatable, and auditable.
Inventory the chemical(s) and pull the SDS
Use the SDS to confirm the chemical identity, concentration, and relevant physical properties.
SDSs commonly direct you to PPE guidance in Section 8 (Exposure Controls/Personal Protection).
Define the exposure scenario
Splash only, incidental contact, repeated contact, or immersion.
Expected contact duration (minutes, hours) and temperature.
Mixtures: if it is a formulated product, identify major constituents where possible.
Use a reputable compatibility resource
Manufacturer chemical resistance guides for the exact glove model and thickness are preferred.
For broader screening, institutional glove guides and established chemical protective clothing selection references can support initial decisions, but you still need product-specific data for higher-risk exposures.
Evaluate permeation and breakthrough data
Look for breakthrough time and permeation rate from recognized methods (often ASTM F739 or EN 16523-1 aligned testing for permeation concepts).
Set an internal rule such as: minimum breakthrough time that exceeds expected contact time with a safety factor, and a replacement interval that is shorter than the breakthrough time.
Check degradation and physical performance
If the glove swells, softens, becomes sticky, or loses tensile strength, it may fail mechanically even before permeation limits are reached.
Confirm grip performance in wet or solvent conditions.
Set change-out rules
Immediate change if contaminated internally, torn, punctured, or visibly degraded.
Scheduled change based on exposure and breakthrough data, especially for repeated tasks.
Confirm final selection with a controlled pilot
Validate comfort, dexterity, and actual wear time compliance.
Confirm that workers can still safely manipulate tools and parts.
Practical reminders that prevent most glove failures
A cut rating does not guarantee protection against every sharp geometry or high-force event, it is a standardized comparison tool.
Blunt puncture ratings do not equal needlestick resistance. Use needlestick-specific testing when that hazard exists.
“Chemical resistant” is meaningless without chemical-specific permeation and breakthrough performance data.
Selection is only half the system, the rest is sizing, training, change-out discipline, and enforcement.
