Industrial Gloves (Cut-Resistant / Rubber)

Applicable Standard: EN 388:2016+A1:2018 (Protective Gloves Against Mechanical Risks) and EN 374-1:2016 (Protective Gloves Against Dangerous Chemicals and Micro-organisms), recognized by KEBS; ANSI/ISEA 105 applies as the equivalent US benchmark.

Industrial gloves span two genuinely different risk profiles under one shipment line: mechanical-protection gloves rated for cut, abrasion, tear, and puncture resistance under EN 388, and chemical or liquid-barrier rubber gloves rated under EN 374. Most importers buy on a single “cut level” number printed on the packaging without knowing which test method actually generated it — the older rotating-blade Coup test, or the newer straight-blade ISO 13997 method now required for the highest cut bands under EN 388:2016. That distinction matters more than it looks: a glove reinforced with hard, abrasive fibre can score well on the Coup test simply by blunting the blade, then genuinely underperform under the straight-blade method — which is precisely the gap the 2016 revision was written to close. Rubber gloves marketed purely for general handling versus rubber gloves marketed as chemical-resistant are also frequently treated as interchangeable by importers, when in fact only the latter carries any obligation to test against specific chemicals at all — a plain household-style rubber glove has no chemical claim to verify in the first place, and problems start the moment marketing copy implies otherwise.

Why This Category Gets Flagged

Three patterns recur. First, cut-level claims based on the Coup (rotating blade) test alone where the printed level implies performance that only the straight-blade ISO 13997 method can actually verify — this is now the single most common labeling mismatch in the category since the 2016 standard revision. Second, chemical-resistant gloves marked with the EN 374 beaker pictogram but shipped with no accompanying breakthrough-time data for the specific chemicals the buyer actually handles — the pictogram alone does not guarantee protection against a solvent or acid outside the tested chemical list, and importers routinely assume it does. Third, mixed-construction shipments under a single SKU, where only one glove construction (yarn blend, coating thickness, or dip formulation) was ever sent to the lab, while the bulk of the shipment is a cost-reduced variant that was never independently tested. A fourth pattern worth flagging separately: coated gloves (latex, nitrile, or PU dip over a knit liner) where the coating thickness on the palm — the part that actually determines both grip and cut performance — varies enough between production batches that a single test report can no longer be assumed to represent every carton in a shipment.

Test Parameters

Labeling Requirements

Gloves and their packaging must carry the EN 388 shield pictogram with its 4–6 digit/letter performance code, and — where a chemical-resistance claim is made — the EN 374 beaker pictogram with the 3-letter code referencing the specific chemicals tested from the standard’s reference list, not a generic “chemical resistant” claim. Manufacturer name, size, and batch/lot number must also appear. Chemical and rubber gloves should additionally state minimum thickness (mm) and length (cm), since both directly affect the measured breakthrough-time results and a thinner substitute glove will not automatically inherit the tested product’s rating. Cut-resistant gloves should show both the Coup-test level and, where the highest bands (E or F) are claimed, the separate ISO 13997 letter rating — a glove that only lists a Coup-test number for a claimed top-tier cut level should be treated as unverified until the straight-blade data is produced. CE marking, manufacturer identification, and size should appear on both the individual glove (where the construction allows) and the retail packaging, and where a glove is dual-rated under both EN 388 and EN 374 — common on heavier-duty chemical-and-cut gloves used in fuel handling or industrial cleaning — both pictograms and their full code sets should be present together rather than only the more prominent of the two.

Packaging & Documentation

Typical Gaps We Find

The most common gap is a cut-level claim generated purely from the Coup test where the printed level implies ISO 13997 straight-blade performance the glove has never actually demonstrated. Close behind is a chemical-resistant glove carrying the EN 374 pictogram with no chemical-specific breakthrough-time data on file anywhere in the supplier’s paperwork — meaning the buyer has no way to know whether the glove actually protects against the acid, solvent, or oil it will be used with on site. We also frequently find lot substitution once we request traceability: the yarn blend, coating, or dip formulation physically in the shipping cartons differs from what generated the original test report, which is a documentation and sourcing-discipline fix rather than a product redesign. Coating thickness variation between batches — thin patches on the palm that reduce both grip and cut performance below the tested reference sample — is the final recurring issue, and one that a simple visual inspection at the port is unlikely to catch without deliberately checking multiple gloves from different cartons rather than a single sample from the top of the pallet.