Beneath the EN 388 pictogram on a work glove are four numbers and up to two letters. They tell you exactly how well the glove protects against mechanical injury. Here is what each character means, and how to use them to choose the right glove.

What is EN 388?

EN 388 is the European standard for gloves protecting against mechanical risks: abrasion, cuts, tearing, puncture and impact. The current version is EN 388:2016 with amendment A1:2018. Since April 2019, gloves against mechanical risks must be certified to this version to be sold in the EU.

How to read the code

The characters beneath the pictogram always appear in the same order:

1. 1st number, abrasion resistance (0-4): how many cycles against sandpaper the glove withstands. Level 4 corresponds to 8,000 cycles.
2. 2nd number, blade cut resistance, coupe test (0-5): resistance to a rotating blade. Level 5 is the highest.
3. 3rd number, tear resistance (0-4): how much force it takes to tear the material apart.
4. 4th number, puncture resistance (0-4): resistance to a pointed object being pushed through.
5. 5th character, TDM cut test to EN ISO 13997 (A-F): a newer and more representative cut test. A is lowest, F is highest.
6. 6th character, impact (P): a P means the glove passes the impact protection test on the back of the hand. If nothing is shown, it has not been tested for impact.

An X in place of a number or letter means the glove has not been tested for that property, not that it is poor. For example, 4X43D means blade cut resistance has not been tested, while TDM cut is level D.

Coupe test or TDM test: why two cut values?

The old coupe test (2nd number) uses a rotating round blade, but it quickly goes dull when it meets gloves with glass or steel fibres, which makes the result unreliable. That is why EN 388:2016 added the TDM test to EN ISO 13997 (5th character, a letter), where a straight blade is drawn across the material once with increasing force. For cut-heavy tasks, the letter (A-F) is what you should look at, not the coupe number.

Which level do you need?

• Light assembly and general handling: focus on abrasion resistance (1st number) and a good fit. Cut protection is rarely decisive.
• Work with sharp items, sheet metal and glass: look at TDM cut (letter C-F) rather than the coupe number.
• Handling pointed objects: look at puncture (4th number). Note that a high puncture score does not mean protection against thin needles.
• Work exposed to impact, for example demolition: choose a glove with P for impact protection.

Checklist before you choose

• Match the code to the task, not just the highest number. More protection often means less dexterity.
• For cuts: use the TDM letter (A-F), not the coupe number.
• An X means not tested, not poor.
• Fit matters. A loose glove can get caught in machinery, while one that is too tight tires the hand.
• EN 388 does not cover chemicals, heat or cold. Other standards apply to those.

Frequently asked questions

What do the numbers under EN 388 mean?

The four numbers stand for abrasion resistance, blade cut resistance (coupe), tear resistance and puncture resistance, each on its own scale. These may be followed by a letter for TDM cut (A-F) and a P for impact protection.

What does an X in the EN 388 code mean?

An X means the glove has not been tested for that property. It does not say the glove is poor, only that there is no value for that particular test.

Coupe test or TDM test: which should I look at for cuts?

For cut-heavy tasks the TDM test (letter A-F to EN ISO 13997) is the most representative, because the coupe test can give unreliable results on gloves with glass and steel fibres.

Does a high number always mean a better glove?

No. The right choice matches the task. Higher protection often comes at the expense of dexterity and comfort, so choose the level the task requires.

See our full range of work gloves, including MaxiFlex and cut-resistant models from ATG. If you are unsure about the level, call us on +45 89 88 67 26.

Source: EN 388:2016 + A1:2018. This article is for guidance only and is not an exhaustive review of the standard.