Rank: Forum user 
|
I'm currently investigating an accident in which an employee cut the back of their hand on a shard of glass. They were repairing a broken window at the time of the accident. The injured party indicates they were wearing cut-resistant gloves the time of the accident. A closer inspection of the gloves in question indicate they are classified as having a cut-resistance level of E. I believe the classification of cut-resistant levels for gloves fruns from A to F (lowest to highest). Question: Does the cut resistant level apply to all areas of the glove (front and back) or does it apply only to certain areas such as the palm of the glove? The back of the glove consists of a knitted material while the front of the gloves also contains a latex or rubber coating which, it would seem, would offer a greater level of protection?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
To some extent you have answered your own question, and identified a weakness with specifying PPE. When cut resistant is deemed appropriate most choosers consider the inner handling face of the glove and neglect consideration of likely exposure by the back of the hand.
To reach a cost point manufacturers will provide gloves which whilst having a tested cut-resistant palm and inner fingers the backing is typically cloth to join the resistant components together.
Meat processors often utilise a full chain mail glove due to the knife skills and dexterity required.
Unfortunately these are far from ideal in a galzing situation due to a lack of grip, an open weave through which small shards could pass and the material nature chipping or cracking the edge of materials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
To some extent you have answered your own question, and identified a weakness with specifying PPE. When cut resistant is deemed appropriate most choosers consider the inner handling face of the glove and neglect consideration of likely exposure by the back of the hand.
To reach a cost point manufacturers will provide gloves which whilst having a tested cut-resistant palm and inner fingers the backing is typically cloth to join the resistant components together.
Meat processors often utilise a full chain mail glove due to the knife skills and dexterity required.
Unfortunately these are far from ideal in a galzing situation due to a lack of grip, an open weave through which small shards could pass and the material nature chipping or cracking the edge of materials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: farrell1  I'm currently investigating an accident in which an employee cut the back of their hand on a shard of glass. They were repairing a broken window at the time of the accident. The injured party indicates they were wearing cut-resistant gloves the time of the accident. A closer inspection of the gloves in question indicate they are classified as having a cut-resistance level of E. I believe the classification of cut-resistant levels for gloves fruns from A to F (lowest to highest). Question: Does the cut resistant level apply to all areas of the glove (front and back) or does it apply only to certain areas such as the palm of the glove? The back of the glove consists of a knitted material while the front of the gloves also contains a latex or rubber coating which, it would seem, would offer a greater level of protection?
The rubber coating is for grip and doesn't form part of the cut-resistance rating. Check the glove to see if it was actually cut. It may have been punctured instead (by the end of the shard of glass). There is a seperate rating for puncture resistance.
Lastly, depending where you are in the world, or where you have bought them from ,consider if the gloves are legit. We've encountered counterfeit PPE before.
|
 1 user thanked neil88 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I thought cut resistance was quoted in numbers (1 to 5), not letters - am I mistaken?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The classification is going to depend upon which version of a conformity standard is being sold.
When EN 388 was revised in 2016 a new test ISO 13997 Cut resistance (TDM) was included to reflect blunting blades and increased force being applied (previous relied on sharp blades and minimal force).
This change saw Blade Cut Resistance numbers become Cut resistance letters.
Interstingly ISO 13997 does not provide data on the resistance to penetration by pointed objects. One supplier shows Glass Manufacturing as E rating whilst recommending an F rating for Glass Handling.
|
4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The classification is going to depend upon which version of a conformity standard is being sold.
When EN 388 was revised in 2016 a new test ISO 13997 Cut resistance (TDM) was included to reflect blunting blades and increased force being applied (previous relied on sharp blades and minimal force).
This change saw Blade Cut Resistance numbers become Cut resistance letters.
Interstingly ISO 13997 does not provide data on the resistance to penetration by pointed objects. One supplier shows Glass Manufacturing as E rating whilst recommending an F rating for Glass Handling.
|
4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.