Deciphering Graphic Language of Safety Gloves
Because safety gloves were clearly meant to be an enigma
This year, I found myself in a European hardware store looking for work gloves (don’t ask me why). Admittedly, I’m no expert in this field; as a designer, my selection process was purely aesthetic. My eyes were drawn to these green gloves with obscure technical information printed right on them. They looked very modern, cool and not overdesigned. The graphics on the upper side conveyed a sense of seriousness, almost as if the gloves wouldn’t function without them. Had Balenciaga crafted gloves like these, people would not shut up about it. However, these aren't Balenciaga; instead, they hail from a German company called Uvex (a brand that I have never heard of).
It was only upon my return to New York that I started asking myself the question: What do all these symbols on the front of the glove actually mean? Visually, the graphics exude a technical and cool aesthetic, a feature of their design that particularly captivated me in the first place. However, drawing from my experience collaborating with technical companies like the lighting manufacturer Zumtobel in Austria and the 3D printer manufacturer Markforged in Boston, I've learned that these symbols aren't merely for show. Behind each symbol lies a specific meaning—a coded language understood by professionals in certain industries but a complete gibberish to me.
I snapped a photo of the glove and forwarded it to my friend, a seasoned construction worker, inquiring if he knew what any of those symbols meant. His response was swift and decisive—he had no idea. So maybe not for fellow designers who are interested in why things look the way they look, but for my one friend who has been in construction for 20-something years, I decided to go down the rabbit hole of deciphering all this information. I won't deny it—I briefly felt like Indiana Jones, deciphering ancient hieroglyphs on a weathered wall for a few moments last week.
Behind each graphics printed on the glove is a larger than life story of love, heartbreaks, drama and betrayal… I wish. Instead, it's a narrative woven with the intricate threads of regulating bodies, individuals establishing standards, numerous meetings, compromises, committee formations, paper pushing, and a myriad of other events that elude my complete comprehension.
Concealed within the symbol that follows is the initial encrypted message. Do you think it’s a "Like" button? Far from it – it symbolizes a hammer striking a tested object. The graphic is composed of two distinct sections: the text at the top (EN 388) and six alphanumeric characters positioned beneath it.
The EN 388 stands as the European DIN standard employed to assess mechanical risks related to hand protection. Gloves boasting an EN 388 rating undergo third-party testing, and their performance is subsequently graded. Each test outcome is meticulously recorded with alphanumeric characters beneath the primary pictogram. The inclusion of "2016" signifies the year of the standard's latest update. Originally known as EN 388:2003, the preceding version mandated only four tests (corresponding to the initial four characters). However, with the ongoing advancements in technical materials, the methods for testing and classifying these products required refinement, prompting the addition of two more tests (accounting for the final two characters out of six). On November 4, 2016 the EN 388 standard was updated, hence the 2016 mark.
From a design standpoint, the "2016" identifier might seem useless. If you observe only four characters (4X24), it may indicate adherence to the outdated standard. On the other hand, the presence of all six characters (4X42CP) signifies that the glove adheres to the latest testing requirements.
Now what are these six tests?
Abrasion resistance 4X42CP
The initial digit in the sequence indicates the glove's rating on a scale of 1 to 4, reflecting its resistance to abrasion. In essence, the glove material undergoes a test wherein it is placed on a specialized machine equipped with standardized sandpaper that rubs the material in circular motion counting cycles. The rating is determined by the number of cycles required for the machine to create a hole in the material. If, for instance, a hole emerges after just 100 cycles of rubbing sandpaper against the material, it receives the lowest rating, denoted as "1". Conversely, the highest rating, designated as "4", is awarded when the material withstands 8000 cycles before succumbing to wear.
Cut resistance (Coup Test) 4X42CP
To assess the blade cut resistance of a safety glove, the glove material is subjected to a circular cutting blade, maintaining a consistent velocity and pressure. The number of cutting cycles is counted, and the higher the count before the material succumbs to cutting, the greater the assigned rating, ranging from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest).
Why the abrasion level highest score is “4” and cut resistance is “5” is a mystery that I will leave for others to uncover.
Furthermore, the presence of the letter "X" instead of numerical ratings from 1 to 5 required more digging. If the tested material causes the blade to dull during the assessment, the conventional test is substituted with the new cut resistance test (ISO 13997). In such cases, the letter "X" replaces the numerical rating, signifying a shift in evaluation methodology.
Tear Resistance 4X42CP
Conducted by yet another dedicated machine, the tear resistance test initiates with a small cut inflicted on the glove material before it is secured onto the apparatus, which then exerts force to pull it apart. The applied force is quantified in Newtons, and the rating level is determined by the magnitude of force needed to tear the material apart. The scale ranges from the lowest rating of "1," (10N required to initiate tearing), to the highest rating of "4," indicative of a substantial tear resistance (75N required to initiate tearing).
Puncture Resistance 4X42CP
The glove material is being stretched between two discs and inserted into yet another specialized machine equipped with a standardized nail (4.5 mm thick). This nail descends, incrementally increasing pressure until it punctures the material. The force exerted, measured in Newtons, dictates the rating, following the same principle as previous tests: the higher the force required to create a hole, the superior the rating. On the scale, "1" represents the lowest rating, requiring 20N, while the highest rating, denoted as "4," demands a formidable force of 150N
Cut resistance (TDM test ISO 13997) 4X42CP
So this test is new and was introduced in 2016. It’s a higher cut resistance test that gives more accurate measurement of a cut resistance test than the one above (second character). Remember we got X because the material dulled the blade, so we need a new test that got added as a separate character.
In contrast to the circular blade used previously, the updated test employs a straight blade, similar to a knife. The glove material is affixed to a device, and the blade moves linearly, mimicking a cutting motion (the way you cut bread). After each pass, the blade is replaced, and the process is repeated with increased force. The force applied is measured in Newtons, with a higher force requirement correlating to a superior rating,
Now the best part! Instead of rating ranging from 1 to 4 (or in one case 1 to 5) the regulatory bodies introduce new scale. It is now A to F, and surprise, “F” being the highest rating. You can also sometimes see letter X there, but in this case it means that the material has not been tested for higher cut protection. Which is confusing, because previously letter “X” meant that the material not only passed it, but required a much harder test instead.
Impact resistance 4X42CP
What if a hammer were to fall on your hand? Would the gloves effectively absorb the impact? This test draws inspiration from the assessment method for motorcycle gloves (EN 13594). The material is affixed to a novel device featuring a "striker" that descends onto the material with a designated force. If the average force transmitted through the glove is 7 kN (kilo Newton) or less, the test is deemed successful, and a "P" is awarded. If there's no numerical representation or if the letter "X" is present, it signifies that the material either hasn't undergone testing or has failed the evaluation.
One aspect that left me truly astounded is the sheer volume of specialized equipment all of which need to be designed, engineered, produced, shipped, personnel trained solely to facilitate these tests. It's nothing short of mind-blowing! While I've delved into how each device operates on YouTube, I'll spare you the details to avoid any unnecessary boredom.
And clearly there are way too many questions on why each rating has different scales? Why the more superior rating is not “1” or “A”. Would’t it be better to see a cluster of 1s and As to communicate (in however flawed way that already is) the better glove to the customer? The juxtaposition of digits and letters is confusing—why not settle for one or the other?
Consider a scenario on Amazon where, instead of the familiar star ratings for price, value, quality, and customer satisfaction, you're presented with something akin to “V34XnY”.
If you are still reading this, then you must be as weird as me. Because we now have another pictogram to decipher. Let’s talk about safety gloves tested against thermal risks, shall we? It’ll be quick.
The European standard DIN EN 407 lays down the essential requirements and specific testing methods for safety gloves in addressing thermal risks such as flames, heat, or molten metal splashes. Originally updated in 2004, you might encounter the notation EN 407:2014 at times. The standard encompasses six tests, each graded from 1 to 4, with "4" signifying the highest rating. An "X" denotes that the glove hasn't undergone a particular test.
A quick look at our glove reveals that it has undergone only one test, specifically the Resistance to Contact Heat, earning the lowest score represented by the number "1". The multiple "Xs" indicate that the glove has not been subjected to the remaining tests. In this scenario, the entire symbol appears somewhat redundant, offering limited insight. Essentially, it conveys that the glove is somewhat below average in shielding against intense heat, and not much more. But what are the tests anyway?
Resistance to Flammability. The glove undergoes a 15-second test with a gas flame. Once the flame extinguishes, a timer starts to measure how long the glove would burn. A shorter duration indicates a higher protection value.
Resistance to Contact Heat. The glove is positioned on a device generating heat between 100° to 500° Celsius. The test measures how rapidly the temperature inside the glove increases by 10° C. A longer duration signifies a higher protection value.
Resistance to Convective Heat. The glove undergoes testing with a gas flame, measuring the time it takes for the temperature inside the glove to rise by 24° C. A longer duration translates to a higher protection value.
Resistance to Radiant Heat. The glove undergoes testing in front of a heat source, measuring the time it takes for the heat to penetrate the material. A longer duration indicates a higher protection value.
Resistance to Small Splashes of Molten Metal. The glove is inserted into a device where molten metal drips onto it. The count of drops required to raise the temperature inside the glove by 40° C is tallied. A higher count translates to a higher score.
Resistance to Large Splashes of Molten Metal. Molten metal is poured onto the glove, and the total weight of metal (in grams) required to damage a patch of simulated skin inside the glove is measured. A higher quantity of metal needed results in a higher score.
For some reason, the consistent ratings from 1 to 4 in this test, without the use of letters, bring me immense joy!
Now, onto the final two symbols for dessert:
The initial symbol, "CE," indicates that products available in the EEA (European Economic Area) have undergone assessment to meet stringent safety, health, and environmental protection standards.
The second symbol signifies "consult instructions for use," as though everything we've covered thus far isn't quite exhaustive.
If, millions of years from now, aliens stumble upon our planet and discover one of these gloves buried in the ruins of my home in Brooklyn, I hope they can use this blog post as a "Rosetta Stone" to decipher the symbols and unravel the messages we, as humans, were communicating with each other.
In my experience, the individuals who can effortlessly comprehend the significance of every pictogram and associated number are usually the manufacturers themselves, not necessarily the end customer. Otherwise, there wouldn't be numerous YouTube videos where individuals painstakingly explain each symbol on various protective gear. I am all up for standardization and regulation, especially in matters of safety, it's evident that this process needs to harmonize with designers who can contribute to making this information more comprehensible for everyone involved.
The concealment of important messages behind numbers and codes resonates with the error states I frequently encounter when using digital products, ranging from Zoom to Illustrator to trying to add a lightbulb that I can control with my iPhone.
In other words, if you enjoyed this article, feel free to rate its informativeness on a scale of 1 to 17, with 17 being the highest rating. Gauge its ease of understanding on a scale from A to K, where J is the superior rating—because why not? Lastly, evaluate its engagement level with an "E" if it was engaging, an "X" if you prefer to abstain from testing its engagement, and a "P" if your current craving leans toward pizza.
3AE