Cut-Resistant Gloves

9/21/2020

The hand consists of 27 bones (including the 8 bones of the wrist). When the other associated structures (nerves, arteries, veins, muscles, tendons, ligaments, joint cartilage, and fingernails) are considered, there is a considerable potential for any number of injuries occurring to the hand when subject to physical trauma.

Hand injuries can be divided into six general categories:

1. lacerations (cuts),
2. fractures and dislocations,
3. soft tissue injuries and amputations,
4. infections,
5. burns, and
6. high pressure injuries (grease and paint guns).

Whenever we are tasked to perform work in which we need to handle a piece of equipment, pick up a portable table, or work with some hardware, proper hand protection – i.e. gloves – are mandatory. Wearing the proper glove can minimize the trauma to ones’ hand from contact with such blunt objects as hammers (Oooch!) and pinch points and even protecting them from burns caused by contact with hot surfaces. Gloves can even offer protection from contact with hazardous materials. And finally, wearing the appropriate glove can protect our hands from sharp objects (and let’s not forget that gloves can keep our hands warm during extreme cold weather protecting us from a range of serious conditions!).    

Yes, gloves can do a lot of good things for us. We just need to understand the hazards our hands may be subject to, and then select the right glove type. The U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics reported that 70 percent of workers who experienced hand injuries in 2015 were not wearing gloves. The remaining 30 percent of hand injuries did involve employees wearing gloves, but the gloves were inadequate, damaged or the wrong type for the hazards that were present. This is especially true when we want gloves that will protect our hands from lacerations and cuts.

The OSHA regulation for hand protection, 29 CFR 1910.138, states that the employer shall select and require employees to use the appropriate hand protection and that the selection shall be based upon an evaluation of the hazards for which employees may be exposures. Yet, when it comes to hand lacerations, OSHA does not specify proper cut resistant levels to ensure workers are properly protected.  

Cut resistance has many dimensions such as force, direction, sharpness of the blade, length of the cut and flexibility of the object. Different products should be evaluated in relation to the expected type of cut risk and environment that they are expected to be used.

In general, cut-resistant gloves are rated for their ability to mitigate cuts and are tested and classified by the American National Standards Institute’s (ANSI), and the American Society for Testing and Materials. The science behind the ANSI test method is to measure the cut resistance of a material against a razor blade under a specified load on a machine known as the TDM-100 (aka Tomodynamometer). This test uses a new blade each time the test is run, thereby removing bias for each test with regards to blade sharpness.

Another method of evaluating cut resistance uses a circular rotating blade of 40mm diameter that rotates against the direction of movement. The blade is moving back and forth over a small distance of about 50mm with a load of 5 Newtons. The numbers of cut cycles are recorded and compared to a cotton control fabric. A cut resistance index is calculated between “0” and “5” depending on the average number of cycles prior to break-through failure: “0” means 0 to 1.2 cycles; “1” means >1.2 to 2.5 cycles; “2” means >2.5 to 5.0 cycles; “3” means >5.0 to 10.0 cycles; “4” means >10.0 to 20.0 cycles; and “5” means >20.0 cycles.

Recently, ASTM International modified the glove testing criteria and established a new system to classify the effectiveness of a gloves’ resistance to cuts.  These ratings are presented in the table below, showing cut-resistant levels and the weight (in grams) needed to cut through material with 20 mm blade travel as well as showing the tasks where these protection levels should be considered (A3 would be the most applicable glove to consider for our typical work activities; although there may be occasions for other protective levels).

No matter how protective a specific glove (or other type of PPE) may be, PPE is always the last option to use. In the case of gloves, such disadvantages may arise:

• PPE protects only the person wearing it, whereas measures controlling the risk at a source can protect everyone at the workplace
• Theoretical maximum levels of protection are difficult to assess
• Protection can result in being ineffective because the glove may be worn incorrectly, or not properly maintained.
• PPE – gloves specifically – can limit pour dexterity as well as being uncomfortable, resulting in being discarded and thus leaving a worker exposed to the specific workplace hazards.

If a process can be changed so that the hazard is no longer present, or we can institute effective work practices that can more effectively control a hazard, then these options should always be used in lieu of any type of PPE: no matter how protective, advanced or familiar a work crew is with a specific type of protective gear. 

You can disagree without being disagreeable

Ruth Bader Ginsburg