60 likes | 70 Views
Discover the need for change in the EN 388 standard, including the recognition of ISO 13997 for more reliable testing methods and the addition of impact protection testing. Learn about the differences between EN 388 and ISO 13997 testing standards and how to mark gloves for impact protection.
E N D
Cut Protective & Chemical Gloves standards evolution • Alistair Inglis • September 2016
A need for change • A need for change has been recognized for the EN 388 standard due to some issues of reproducibility specific to the cut and abrasion parts of the standard • The reliability of the test at higher cut levels raised some questions. • Recognition of the ISO 13997 TDM test • ISO 13997 has been recognised as a more reliable test method than the Coupe test because of the issue of blade dulling with the Coupe test – especially when glass fibre or steel is present within the fibre mix • A test for impact protection has also been added to the standard • Improvement of abrasion test with new abrasive paper EN 388 Evolution Needs
What are Differences btw EN 388 (cut test method) & ISO 13997 Coup Test Machine TDM 100 Machine
Cut Test EN 388 and ISO 13997 EN 388 Cut test levels ISO 13997 Cut test levels
If the glove passes Impact protection standard Possible to claim Impact protection in adding “P” on marking Marking Impact NEW OLD X