EN 388 vs ANSI/ISEA 105 cut levels
Two standards, two scales, and a lot of charts that quietly pretend they are the same thing. Here is how the levels line up, how to read a glove marking, and where the conversion breaks down.
How to read a marking like 4X42D
EN 388:2016+A1:2018 reports six results in a fixed order. The glove in the example — 4X42D — reads across like this:
| # | Test | Scale | 4X42D | What the test does |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Abrasion | 0–4 | 4 | Martindale abrasion cycles |
| 2 | Blade cut (Coupe) | 0–5, or X | X | Rotating circular blade. Marked X when the material blunts the blade and the test is not meaningful — common on high-performance liners. |
| 3 | Tear | 0–4 | 4 | Force to propagate a tear |
| 4 | Puncture | 0–4 | 2 | Blunt probe. Does not cover hypodermic needles. |
| 5 | Cut (TDM, ISO 13997) | A–F, or X | D | Straight blade under increasing load. This is the number that matters for real cut performance. |
| 6 | Impact | P, or not shown | — | Added by amendment A1:2018. Only shown when the glove passes — which is why you often see five characters instead of six. |
So 4X42D is a glove with good abrasion resistance (4 of 4), no meaningful Coupe result (X), good tear strength (4 of 4), moderate puncture resistance (2 of 4) and a real cut performance of level D under the TDM test. The sixth position is missing, which means impact protection was not tested or not passed.
Conversion table
One newton is 101.97 grams of force, so the EN scale can be expressed in the units US buyers use. This is a comparison of measured force, not a claim that the two tests are interchangeable.
| EN 388 cut level | ISO 13997 load | Same force in grams | Overlaps ANSI/ISEA 105 |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 2–5 N | 204–510 g | A1 |
| B | 5–10 N | 510–1020 g | A2 |
| C | 10–15 N | 1020–1530 g | A3 |
| D | 15–22 N | 1530–2243 g | A4 |
| E | 22–30 N | 2243–3059 g | A5 |
| F | 30+ N | 3059+ g | A6 / A7 / A8 / A9 |
Why the conversion is approximate
The two tests share a principle: a straight blade is drawn across the sample under a controlled load until it cuts through, and the force required is recorded. What differs is the detail — blade geometry and sharpness state, how the load is applied, and the pass criteria. ISO 13997 and ASTM F2992-15 were developed separately, so their boundary levels do not coincide.
The practical consequence: EN level D overlaps ANSI A4 and the bottom of A5. If a European supplier quotes "level D" against a US purchase order that says A5, that is a conversation to have before the container ships, not after, and it is settled with the test report rather than with a chart.
Common mistakes
- Treating a chart as a certificate. A chart maps scales; only a test report shows what your glove achieves.
- Assuming the law sets the level. It does not — see the regulatory framing.
- Reading the Coupe number. On modern high-cut liners, the reliable figure is the TDM letter in position five.
- Confusing puncture with needle resistance. The EN 388 puncture test uses a blunt probe; hypodermic needles are covered by a different test (ASTM F2878).
- Using cut level as a proxy for everything else. Chemicals, heat, cold, vibration and static each have their own standard.
The other standards a glove can carry
Cut resistance is one line on the label. These are the ones that most often appear alongside it.
| Standard | What it covers |
|---|---|
| EN ISO 21420:2020 | General requirements for protective gloves (replaced EN 420) |
| EN 374 / EN ISO 374 | Chemicals and micro-organisms |
| EN 407 | Thermal risks — heat and/or fire |
| EN 511 | Protection against cold |
| EN 16350 | Antistatic properties |
| EN ISO 10819 | Hand-arm vibration |
| EN ISO 11393-4 | Chain-saw protective gloves (replaced EN 381-7) |
| EN 60903 / IEC 60903 | Live working — insulating gloves |
| ANSI/ISEA 105-2016 | US consensus standard: cut A1–A9 plus abrasion, puncture and more |
| ASTM F2992-15 | The TDM cut test behind the ANSI/ISEA cut levels |
| OSHA 29 CFR 1910.138 | US law: choose appropriate hand protection — no numeric level |
| Regulation (EU) 2016/425 | EU PPE Regulation: type-examination, technical file, CE marking |
Frequently asked questions
Is there an exact EN 388 to ANSI conversion?
No. Both standards measure cut resistance with a straight blade under increasing load (TDM), but ISO 13997 and ASTM F2992-15 differ in edge geometry, load application and pass criteria. EN 388 results are reported in newtons and ANSI/ISEA 105 in grams of force, so the scales can be compared, but the boundary levels do not line up. Any table that gives a single one-to-one mapping is oversimplifying.
Why does my glove show an X instead of a blade cut number?
The second EN 388 position is the Coupe test, which uses a rotating circular blade. High-performance liners — glass fibre, HPPE, steel blends — blunt the blade during the test, which makes the result unreliable and, historically, dangerously optimistic. From EN 388:2016 the marking shows X in that position and reports cut performance under the TDM test instead. An X is not a failure.
Which number should I put in a purchase order?
The one your buyer reads. US buyers and their insurers work in ANSI/ISEA 105 A-levels; European buyers work in the EN 388 cut letter. State the standard version as well (EN 388:2016+A1:2018, ANSI/ISEA 105-2016), require the test report as an attachment, and add the other hazards of the task as separate standards.
Does a higher cut level reduce other protection?
It can. Higher cut levels usually need denser, harder liners, which reduces dexterity and grip and can reduce abrasion and tear performance. A glove is a balance, and the cut letter tells you nothing about chemicals, heat, vibration or static.
Where does ANSI A9 end?
ANSI/ISEA 105-2016 runs from A1 at 200 grams of force to A9 at 6,000 grams and above. A9 is used in specialist work such as high-volume blade handling and some waste and metal recycling tasks, and it is rarely needed in general industry.