February 07, 2018
Exposure to sharp materials and cut risk is commonplace in industrial environments. The degree of risk dictates which of the six available cut resistance ratings (A-F) should be employed.
One of the most significant changes was the introduction of a revised product testing methodology, resulting in an expanded performance level rating for cut resistance, based on more rigorous, repeatable and standardised testing.
While the changes were designed to facilitate easier selection of a suitable glove solution, the added cut category and expanded performance level rating can make it difficult to ascertain at a glance which of the many available options represents the best choice for the specific present conditions.
A range of additional factors guide the choice of cut resistant hand protection, but none more than the application and environment. Exposure to sharp materials and cut risk is commonplace in most industrial environments and the degree of present risk in specific workplace undertakings is the most useful indicator when determining which of the six available cut resistance ratings should be employed. While some duties — such as metal press work — are inherently and overtly risky, even seemingly ‘safe’ tasks, such as screwing and unscrewing or carrying out general warehouse duties, can leave workers vulnerable to cut injury. The best protective solutions are designed expressly for defined tasks, or a range of typical activities and likely conditions within a specific industry sector.
To ensure you identify the best possible choice, you should look for solutions from a vendor that offers a comprehensive range of options across the full cut level rating gamut.