01
Purpose
Covers glove performance against mechanical risks including abrasion, blade cut, tear, puncture and, where applicable, impact.
Hand ProtectionTECHNICAL PPE LIBRARY
EN 388
Protective Gloves Against Mechanical Risks
Covers glove performance against mechanical risks including abrasion, blade cut, tear, puncture and, where applicable, impact.
Product type
Protective glove against mechanical risks
Field focus
Code + product + conditions of use
TECHNICAL PRODUCT IDENTITY
EN 388
EN 388Standard0–4Position 1: abrasion0–5 / XPosition 2: Coup cut0–4Position 3: tearAlways verify the actual product label, manufacturer technical documentation and conformity markings.
02
Typical use
Material handling, assembly, maintenance and tasks with mechanical hand hazards.
03
What to look for?
Read the EN 388 performance code in sequence: abrasion, Coup blade cut, tear, puncture, ISO 13997/TDM cut and optional impact P marking.
CLASSES & SELECTION LOGIC
Technical classes in this standard
A class code is not a selection decision by itself. Interpret it together with task-specific risk assessment and manufacturer data.
1: 0–4
Abrasion
Position 1 shows abrasion performance.
2: 0–5 / X
Coup blade cut
Position 2 is the circular-blade/Coup cut result; X can indicate not tested/not applicable.
3: 0–4
Tear
Position 3 shows tear resistance.
4: 0–4
Puncture
Position 4 shows puncture resistance with the standard probe.
5: A–F / X
ISO 13997 TDM cut
Position 5 is TDM cut performance, increasing from A to F.
6: P
Impact (optional)
P is added when the impact test is passed; this position is optional.
READ THE PRODUCT LABEL
Code & marking decoder
EN 388StandardCurrent published reference is EN 388:2016+A1:2018.0–4Position 1: abrasionAbrasion performance level.0–5 / XPosition 2: Coup cutCircular-blade test result; X may appear on high cut-resistant materials.0–4Position 3: tearTear performance level.0–4Position 4: punctureStandard mechanical puncture performance level.A–F / XPosition 5: TDMISO 13997 cut-performance letter.PPosition 6: impactOptional impact-protection pass marking.
READ THE PRODUCT IN THE FIELD
Where is the standard marking found?
Location varies by manufacturer and design. These are the first places to check; final verification must use the actual product and manufacturer documentation.
1
EN 388 pictogram and performance code on glove back
The marking should be legible, durable and match the product.
2
Printed / sewn label on cuff
The marking should be legible, durable and match the product.
3
Full up-to-six-position code structure on packaging and manufacturer datasheet
The marking should be legible, durable and match the product.
STANDARD FAMILY
Standards often reviewed together
EN 388:2016+A1:2018Mechanical risks with an up-to-six-position performance code
EN ISO 374Chemical risks are assessed separately
EN 407Heat and thermal risks are assessed separately
COMMONLY CONFUSED
They are not the same thing
High cut level ≠ strong glove for every hazard
Cut performance does not replace chemical, thermal or needle-puncture protection.
WRONG-SELECTION EXAMPLE
A typical field mistake
Selecting gloves only by EN 388 cut rating for a task involving both sharp metal and chemicals.
Why is this a problem?
Mechanical and chemical hazards require separate performance data.
Better approach
Identify all hazards and verify a product with the required mechanical and chemical performance using manufacturer data.
WHERE IN THE FIELD?
Typical applications
01
Material handling
02
Metal work
03
Assembly
04
Maintenance
05
Sharp edges
06
Warehouse
HSE FIELD CHECK
30-second field check
Use for quick pre-checks. It does not replace certification, competent inspection or task-specific risk assessment.
CHECK FOCUS
Does the glove match the actual mechanical hazard?
CRITICAL MISTAKE
Selecting gloves only by EN 388 cut rating for a task involving both sharp metal and chemicals.
BETTER APPROACH
Identify all hazards and verify a product with the required mechanical and chemical performance using manufacturer data.
1
Does the glove match the actual mechanical hazard?
2
Is the up-to-six-position performance code read in the correct sequence?
3
Any damage on palm/fingers?
4
Are size, grip and dexterity suitable for the task?
5
Were chemical, thermal or needle-like additional hazards assessed separately?
RELATED SERNEM RESOURCES