Cut Resistance Glove Levels Explained: ANSI/ISEA 105 A1 Through A9
cut resistance glove levels explained: the short answer
Short answer: ANSI/ISEA 105-2016 uses the TDM-100 (Tomodynamometer) test method. A standardized blade is drawn across the glove material under a specified load until the blade cuts through. The load required for cut-through (in grams) determines the level. Key points:
Cut Resistance Glove Levels Explained: ANSI/ISEA 105-2016 A1 Through A9 Rating System, Test Methods, and How to Choose the Right Level
Published · Last updated
Cut-resistant gloves are rated under ANSI/ISEA 105-2016 (American National Standard for Hand Protection Selection Criteria) using a 9-level scale from A1 (lowest) to A9 (highest cut resistance). The 2016 update replaced the older A through F scale with the A1-A9 system, providing better differentiation at the high end of cut resistance. This guide explains what each level means, how cut resistance is tested, which materials achieve which levels, and how to match glove selection to job hazard.')}
The ANSI/ISEA 105-2016 A1-A9 Cut Resistance Levels
| Level | Min. Cut Force (grams) | Typical Materials | Common Applications |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 200g | Light cut-resistant blends | Light assembly, parts handling |
| A2 | 500g | HPPE, glass fiber blends | General material handling |
| A3 | 1,000g | HPPE with reinforcement | Metal stamping, glass handling |
| A4 | 1,500g | Steel fiber, HPPE blends | Sheet metal, glass cutting |
| A5 | 2,200g | Steel fiber, composite yarns | Automotive stamping, butchering |
| A6 | 3,000g | Cut-resistant composite yarns | Metal fabrication, heavy glass |
| A7 | 4,000g | High-density composites | Extreme metal forming |
| A8 | 5,000g | Steel/Dyneema composites | Blade and knife manufacturing |
| A9 | 6,000g+ | Highest-density steel composites | Highest-hazard metal work |
How Cut Resistance Is Tested: TDM-100 Method
ANSI/ISEA 105-2016 uses the TDM-100 (Tomodynamometer) test method. A standardized blade is drawn across the glove material under a specified load until the blade cuts through. The load required for cut-through (in grams) determines the level. Key points: To decode the physical marking printed on a glove cuff — including the EN 388 marks that appear beside ANSI codes on imported gloves — see how to read the ANSI cut level.
- Test is conducted on material samples in a controlled laboratory setting — not on assembled gloves
- Real-world cut resistance may differ based on glove construction, fit, and how the glove is used
- TDM-100 replaced the older Coup test method used in the previous ANSI scale (A-F)
- European EN 388 uses a different test method (Coup) — A1-A9 levels are NOT directly comparable to EN 388 letter ratings
Materials and Their Cut Resistance Profiles
| Material | Cut Performance | Tradeoffs |
|---|---|---|
| HPPE (High Performance Polyethylene) | A2-A5 range | Good dexterity; lower heat resistance |
| Dyneema/Spectra fibers | A3-A6 range | Lightweight; slippery on some surfaces |
| Steel fiber blends | A5-A9 range | Heavy; heat resistant; may affect dexterity |
| Glass fiber composites | A2-A5 range | Good cut resistance; glass fiber irritation risk |
| Aramid (Kevlar) | A3-A5 range | Heat resistant; degrades with UV; abrasion resistant |
| Composite multi-layer yarns | A4-A9 range | Engineered for specific performance profiles |
Selecting the Right Level for Common Tasks
To map a task to a level interactively, use the free cut resistance level selector; the table below is the same logic in reference form.
| Task | Recommended Level | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Light assembly, small parts | A1-A2 | Prioritize dexterity over cut resistance |
| General warehouse/distribution | A2-A3 | Balance of protection and grip |
| Sheet metal handling (light gauge) | A4-A5 | Minimize edge cut exposure |
| Glass handling | A4-A6 | Consider grip coating for slip resistance |
| Meat/food processing with blades | A5-A7 | Often also need heat/liquid resistance |
| Metal stamping, heavy gauge steel | A6-A8 | Steel fiber blends recommended |
| Blade/knife manufacturing | A8-A9 | Maximum cut protection priority |
Building a Cut Hazard Assessment
Selecting the correct cut resistance level begins with a systematic PPE hazard assessment per OSHA 1910.132. For cut hazards, follow this process:
- Identify all cut exposure sources in the operation: blades, sheet metal edges, stamping dies, glass, strapping, and wire — each source may have a different cut severity profile
- Assess contact mechanics: sliding or dragging edge contact is the highest-risk scenario; static sharp-edge contact is lower risk; incidental contact is lowest
- Consider frequency and duration: intermittent contact with a sharp edge differs from continuous handling of sheet metal edges — higher frequency and duration generally warrant higher cut resistance
- Review injury records and near-misses specific to your operation — historical data reveals actual exposure levels better than generic task descriptions
- Evaluate secondary properties required alongside cut resistance: grip coating for wet or oily surfaces, heat resistance for hot materials, chemical resistance where applicable, and dexterity requirements for precision tasks
- Document the hazard assessment results and glove selection rationale — OSHA 1910.132(d)(2) requires written certification of the PPE hazard assessment, signed and dated
Reassess the hazard assessment whenever processes, materials, or equipment change in ways that could alter cut hazard severity. A written program with periodic review ensures glove selection remains matched to actual workplace exposures over time.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is the difference between the old ANSI A-F scale and the new A1-A9 scale?
A: The older ANSI/ISEA 105-2011 standard used levels A through F tested with the Coup (circular blade) method. The 2016 revision introduced A1-A9 with the TDM-100 linear blade test. The scales are not directly comparable — an A4 in the old system does not equal A4 in the new system. Verify which standard applies to the gloves you are comparing.
Q: Does a higher cut resistance level mean the glove is always better?
A: Not necessarily — higher cut resistance levels often mean stiffer, heavier gloves with reduced dexterity. For precise assembly work, an A6 glove that limits hand movement can create ergonomic hazards and increase the risk of repetitive stress injury. Select the level that adequately addresses the cut hazard while maintaining required dexterity.
Q: Are A1-A9 levels the same as the European EN 388 levels?
A: No — EN 388 uses different test methods (Coup test) and letter/number designations. An A4 ANSI glove is not equivalent to an EN 388 Level 4. Some gloves carry both ANSI and EN 388 ratings. When comparing gloves across standards, look for the specific test data (grams or Newtons) rather than the level letter/number.
Q: What glove level is required by OSHA?
A: OSHA 1910.138 requires hand protection appropriate to the hazard but does not specify ANSI cut resistance levels. OSHA references appropriate protection — employers must select gloves that adequately protect against identified cut risks per the PPE hazard assessment (1910.132). The ANSI A-level system provides the framework for making that selection.
Q: Do cut-resistant gloves also protect against puncture?
A: Cut resistance and puncture resistance are separate properties tested separately under ANSI/ISEA 105. A glove with high cut resistance may have low puncture resistance and vice versa. Check the full ANSI 105 data sheet for a glove to see separate ratings for cut, puncture, abrasion, and (if applicable) heat and chemical resistance.
Q: What is the best glove for glass handling?
A: Glass handling exposes workers to sharp glass edges (cut hazard) and slippery surfaces (grip concern). A4-A6 cut resistance with a grip-enhancing coated palm (nitrile, polyurethane, or foam nitrile) is typically specified. Coated gloves maintain dexterity while the cut-resistant liner provides protection. For sharp glass edges in manufacturing, A5-A6 is more conservative.
Q: Can I wash cut-resistant gloves?
A: Many cut-resistant gloves are machine-washable, but follow manufacturer instructions. High-performance fibers (Dyneema, Kevlar) can withstand standard washing. Steel fiber blends may require specific care to prevent rust or fiber damage. Coated palm gloves may have coating durability limitations — verify wash cycle compatibility with the specific glove model.
Q: How often should cut-resistant gloves be replaced?
A: There is no fixed OSHA-required replacement interval for cut-resistant gloves. Replace when: cut resistance liner shows wear (holes, thinning); coating is worn off the high-wear areas; glove no longer fits properly; or after any significant cut incident (fibers may be locally weakened). Some employers implement volume-based replacement (e.g., after X hours or per inspection cycle).
Q: Are higher-level cut gloves thicker?
A: Generally yes — higher cut resistance requires more or denser cut-resistant material, which typically increases glove thickness and stiffness. Some manufacturers engineer lightweight high-resistance gloves using advanced fiber composites that maintain dexterity at higher levels. Compare glove gram weight and specific dexterity ratings when high-level cut resistance AND fine motor control are both required.
Q: Where can I find ANSI-rated cut resistant gloves?
A: WCSafety.com carries a range of ANSI/ISEA 105-rated cut-resistant gloves from A2 through A9 levels for applications from light assembly to heavy metal fabrication.
Q: Do cut-resistant gloves protect against chemical exposure?
A: Cut resistance and chemical resistance are separate properties. Many cut-resistant gloves use dry liner materials (HPPE, steel fiber) that provide no chemical protection. For combined cut and chemical hazard, use gloves rated for both — typically a chemical-resistant outer shell with a cut-resistant liner. Verify chemical resistance for the specific chemical per manufacturer data.
Q: What is the significance of palm vs. full-hand cut resistance?
A: Most cut-resistant gloves are designed for palm and finger cut exposure — the primary contact area. Some gloves offer cut resistance only on the palm with a less protective back-of-hand. For tasks where the back of the hand contacts cutting hazards (under sheet metal edges, reaching into machinery), specify full-hand or back-of-hand cut resistance.
Q: Are ANSI A9 gloves practical for daily use?
A: A9 gloves are engineered for extreme cut hazard environments — blade manufacturing, high-density metal fabrication. The materials and construction required for A9 performance often result in gloves with limited dexterity and greater weight. Daily use in less-hazardous environments with A9 gloves creates ergonomic challenges. Use the minimum adequate cut level for the hazard to maintain worker comfort and compliance.
Q: Can I use the same gloves for food handling and manufacturing cut hazards?
A: Food processing cut-resistant gloves must meet FDA food-contact compliance (often food-safe coating materials) in addition to cut resistance ratings. Industrial cut-resistant gloves are not necessarily food-safe. Gloves used in food processing should specify both ANSI cut level AND FDA-compliant materials. Separate gloves for food and non-food applications are best practice.
Q: Does glove thickness affect cut resistance rating?
A: Thickness contributes to cut resistance but is not the sole determinant — material type (HPPE vs. steel fiber vs. composite) has a greater effect on cut resistance per unit of thickness than thickness alone. A thin Dyneema glove may outperform a thick cotton glove on cut resistance. The ANSI A-level rating represents tested performance regardless of how that performance is achieved.
Shop and Learn More on WCSafety.com
- Shop All Respirators & Respiratory Protection
- Shop All CO Alarms & Carbon Monoxide Detectors
- Shop All Hearing Protection & Earplugs
- Shop All Safety Glasses & Eye Protection
- Shop All Hard Hats & Head Protection
- Shop All High-Visibility Safety Vests & Apparel
- Shop All Personal Protective Equipment
- Honeywell North 5500 Series Half-Face Respirator
- Honeywell North 75FFP100 P100 Particulate Filter
- Honeywell North 7581P100L OV+P100 Large Cartridge
- Honeywell North 7582P100L Acid Gas + P100 Cartridge
- Honeywell North N75001L Organic Vapor Cartridge
- Honeywell North N75002L Acid Gas Cartridge
- Honeywell North 7506P100 Bayonet P100 Prefilter
- 3M 6001 Organic Vapor Respirator Cartridge
Disclosures & editorial standards
WC Safety participates in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. Outbound Amazon links are affiliate links. We accept no manufacturer payment, sponsorship, or product samples. This content is not medical, legal, or regulatory advice. Safety equipment selection is governed by applicable OSHA standards and your facility's safety program.
WC Safety participates in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. Outbound Amazon links are affiliate links. We accept no manufacturer payment, sponsorship, or product samples. This content is not medical, legal, or regulatory advice. Safety equipment selection is governed by applicable OSHA standards and your facility's safety program.
Related reference guides
- EN 388 glove standard explained — decode the abrasion, cut, tear, and puncture rating.
- ANSI impact gloves (ISEA 138) — decode impact levels 1, 2, and 3.
- Glove size chart — measure your hand and choose the right size.
Primary sources for this page
The wording behind this page sits in OSHA 29 CFR 1910.138, OSHA 29 CFR 1910.132, NIOSH Personal Protective Equipment.
Why trust this page?
Why trust this page? Every figure on it is taken from the published text of the standard or the manufacturer document named beside it, not from a secondary summary. WC Safety is an independent PPE review site: we hold no inventory and sell nothing directly, so there is no product we need this page to favour. Where sources disagree, the page says so and plans on the more conservative figure rather than picking one.
Who wrote and reviewed this
By Steven Eaton, WC Safety Editorial. Reviewed against the primary sources cited on this page at each update. Steven Eaton is the editor of WC Safety and holds no safety certifications; this page reports what the standards say and is not a substitute for advice from a qualified professional on your specific exposure.
Methodology: how this page is maintained
Methodology. Figures are read from the primary source and re-checked whenever the underlying standard or a manufacturer document changes. No laboratory testing is performed for this page. Where a figure is not published, the page states that rather than estimating it, because a plausible invented number is more dangerous than an absent one.
Disclosure
Disclosure. WC Safety participates in the Amazon Associates programme and earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through outbound links, at no cost to you. That does not influence what this page says. Nothing here is medical, legal or regulatory advice.
More questions on this topic
Who is responsible for providing this equipment?
Under OSHA 29 CFR 1910.132(h) the employer pays for required personal protective equipment, with narrow exceptions such as ordinary safety-toe footwear and prescription eyewear that the worker is allowed to take off site. The duty to assess the hazard and select the equipment sits with the employer, not the wearer.
Does this equipment expire?
Most protective equipment carries a service life from the date of MANUFACTURE rather than the date of first use, and elastomers, filter media and adhesives age in storage. Check the manufacturer's stated shelf life and the date stamp on the item itself; a sealed package does not stop the clock.
Is a higher rating always better?
No. A higher rating usually costs breathing resistance, weight, dexterity or field of view, and equipment that is uncomfortable comes off. The correct choice is the lowest rating that covers the assessed exposure with margin, not the highest number available.
What if two published sources disagree on a figure?
Treat the manufacturer's current published document and the standard's own text as primary, and plan on the more conservative figure until the conflict is resolved. This site reports both figures when they differ rather than silently picking one.
Does a foreign approval count in the United States?
Not automatically. CE, EN, AS/NZS and KMOEL marks are issued under different test methods, and a device is only NIOSH-approved if it appears on the NIOSH Certified Equipment List. Scales are not interchangeable either - an EN SNR figure is not a US NRR.
Is training required as well as equipment?
Yes, for essentially every class of PPE. OSHA 1910.132(f) requires training on when the equipment is necessary, what to use, how to don, doff and adjust it, its limitations, and its care and disposal - with retraining when conditions or the equipment change.
Does PPE replace engineering controls?
No. PPE is the last layer in the hierarchy of controls. The employer must first try to eliminate or substitute the hazard, then engineer it out, then control it administratively; PPE covers what is left over and fails at the individual wearer rather than at the source.
How do I know an item actually meets the standard it claims?
Look for the marking on the item itself, not on the packaging or the listing photograph, and check the certification number against the issuing body's own register where one exists. A claim in a product description is not evidence of certification.
Do I need to keep records?
Where the standard requires an assessment, a fit test, a training session or an inspection, the record is part of compliance rather than an optional extra. An undocumented fit test is treated as one that did not happen.
What should I check when equipment arrives?
Confirm the model and size against what was specified, check the certification marking and the date of manufacture, and inspect for shipping damage before the item is issued. Substitutions at the distributor level are common and are usually discovered at the point of use.
How often should this be reviewed?
Whenever the process, the material or the exposure changes, whenever the standard is revised, and on a fixed cycle in between. A hazard assessment that has not been revisited since the last process change is out of date by definition.
Does a higher price indicate better protection?
No. Price tracks comfort, features, brand and distribution far more closely than it tracks rated protection, and in several categories the highest-rated item is not the most expensive one. The rating on the marking is the protection claim; the price is not.
Where does the authoritative wording live?
In the standard itself and in the manufacturer's own current documentation. Summaries - including this one - are navigation aids. Where a decision has legal or medical weight, read the cited section rather than the summary of it.
Can this page be used as a compliance document?
No. It reports what the cited standards say so that the right section can be found quickly. It is not legal advice and it is not a substitute for a written program, a hazard assessment or advice from a qualified professional.
What is the single most common mistake in this area?
Selecting equipment before assessing the exposure. The assessment decides the class of protection required; starting from a product and working backwards is how the wrong class gets bought and then defended.
Leave a comment