Hand injuries are one of the main reasons for emergency room visits and lost work. The two most common hand injuries are cuts and tears, making cut protection an important issue in today’s safety management. There is a unique set of hazards and environmental factors in every workplace, so it may be difficult to determine the most appropriate choice for each worker.

Question 1: What measures can be taken to protect workers from harm?

The use of protective gloves, especially those designed to provide cut protection, is a common method. As the designer and manufacturer of cut-resistant gloves, we will consider factors such as cut-resistant yarn, tear resistance and abrasion resistance of knitted fabrics. In addition, we consider other attributes such as grip performance and dexterity as important aspects of cut protection.

In addition to gloves, cut protection includes other factors unrelated to protective clothing, such as machine protection, workplace settings, working conditions, and worker training. Gloves are equally important to us and are often seen as the last line of defense. The head of the security department should make every effort to ensure that the hands of the workers are not at risk.

Question 2: What factors need to be considered when choosing the desired degree of protection against cuts? Isn’t it simply to choose the highest level?

It is not enough to deal with just one symptom. In the case of a cut, it is not just a matter of raising the level of protection of the glove, but the root cause needs to be determined.

Is it due to sharp objects, poor grip, inadequate gloves, or worker fatigue? There are many other factors that can cause cuts. It is important to fully assess the hazard and choose the right glove. Injury is often caused by improper selection or a lack of understanding of the wearer’s needs.

Question 3: In 2016, the EN 388 safety standard was significantly updated. What new situations are there and what does this mean for people who choose protective gloves?

Since the first standard in 1994 and the previous standard in 2003, technology has grown considerably. New engineering yarns (glass fiber, stainless steel, etc.) have made the standards for cut-proof test methods inconsistent and unreliable, with high variability between different laboratories and even in the same laboratory. Therefore, new test methods are urgently needed.

When testing for abrasion resistance, the sandpaper specified in the old standard has been discontinued, which has resulted in the use of a large number of different wear-resistant papers, resulting in inconsistent results. The latest revision of this standard defines a new type of wear-resistant paper that enables the laboratory to test reliably and consistently.

A trend has recently emerged in which a buffer layer is used as an anti-glove protection function. Because of the inability to continuously test the effectiveness of these buffer layers, glove manufacturers began claiming that their products had this capability without any verifiable testing. To illustrate this more clearly, an impact test was developed. The gloves passed this test can make a statement.

Finally, the introduction of the new EN ISO cut-off test may have the greatest impact on the industry. This test is especially useful for cut-proof materials that will passivate the blades used in the cutting test. Now, glove manufacturers can perform two cut-proof tests. Security managers need to understand how these tests work and what they mean for the wearer.

Question 4: Sometimes people say that leather is the best body protection material. What materials on the market are now facing major cut-proof challenges?

Leather is far from ideal cut-proof material. As a natural product, this material has inconsistencies. It is difficult for manufacturers to use leather to provide cut protection. Finally, leather is just skin – so there is no point in using animal skin to protect human skin.

Many yarns are now available to provide a high level of protection. The most effective yarns are blended or engineered yarns. For example, para-aramid is five times stronger than steel, and high-performance polyethylene (HPPE)is three times stronger than para-aramid. These materials are very comfortable and have excellent dexterity. Not only can we design, test and manufacture gloves with these yarns, we also offer high levels of long-term reliable cut protection.

Question 5: What are the important factors when evaluating cut protection and glove selection?

Grip performance – The importance of obscuring objects when they are considered to pose a greater threat when moving. A firm grip with an appropriate cut-off rating significantly reduces the risk of injury. Preventing slippage and reducing the required grip force while performing a task provides more control to the wearer.

 

Products that provide “cut-proof performance” and “cut-proof protection” do not completely prevent or eliminate the possibility of cuts or punctures, and are unsuitable or untested to provide protection against electric blades or other sharp or rotating equipment. . Users should always be careful when handling sharp materials.