What ansi isea 138 2019 hand: What Is Ansi Isea 138 2019 Hand Protection Standard

That Impact Icon on Your Glove Means Nothing Without This Number Behind It

Reviewed by the WC Safety Editorial — independent safety specialists. Last updated: May 2026.

Short answer: ANSI/ISEA 138-2019 is the current American National Standard for impact-resistant gloves, defining three performance levels — Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 — based on how much peak force a glove transmits to the hand during a standardized back-of-hand impact test. It is the benchmark for evaluating impact gloves used in oil and gas, construction, utilities, and heavy manufacturing. Without an ANSI/ISEA 138-2019 level marking, an "impact glove" has no verified performance claim.

The Injury Reality: Hand and finger injuries are the most common occupational injury in the United States — accounting for approximately 1 million emergency room visits annually and over the listed price million in workers' compensation costs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In oil and gas alone, pinch-point and crush injuries to the hands are a leading cause of recordable incidents. The ANSI/ISEA 138-2019 standard exists to ensure that when an employer specifies "impact protection," the glove selected has been independently tested to deliver it.

ANSI/ISEA 138-2019 — Performance Level Quick Reference

Lower transmitted force = higher protection. Level 3 is the most protective. All levels require passing the test at all five back-of-hand strike zones: primary knuckles, secondary knuckles, and index/middle/ring fingers.

What Is ANSI/ISEA 138-2019?

ANSI/ISEA 138-2019 is the American National Standard for Performance and Classification of Impact-Resistant Hand Protection, developed by the International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA) and ratified by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). It is the current edition of a standard first published as ANSI/ISEA 138-2010 and revised substantially in 2019 to introduce a more rigorous test method and an additional performance level.

The standard serves one specific purpose: defining how much back-of-hand impact force a glove must absorb to qualify for each of three performance levels, and specifying how that performance must be measured and communicated. It does not address palm cut resistance, chemical resistance, heat resistance, or grip — those properties are governed by separate standards, primarily ANSI/ISEA 105 for cut and puncture performance.

The standard is voluntarily adopted by manufacturers but effectively mandatory in industries where impact hand injuries are a leading cause of recordable incidents. Many oil and gas operators, general contractors, and utilities employers have written ANSI/ISEA 138-2019 Level 2 or Level 3 into their corporate PPE matrices as non-negotiable requirements. For the OSHA standard that governs hand protection selection in general industry, see: What Is OSHA 29 CFR 1910.138? General Industry Hand Protection Explained.

How the ANSI/ISEA 138-2019 Impact Test Works

The 2019 edition replaced the pendulum-swing test method of the 2010 edition with a more repeatable and industry-accepted drop-weight apparatus test. Understanding the test method is essential for evaluating manufacturer claims — a glove claiming Level 3 protection based on in-house testing (rather than an accredited third-party laboratory) cannot be verified.

Test Apparatus

The test uses a calibrated drop-weight apparatus with a 2.5 kg striker (typically with a flat or hemispherical contact face) dropped from a specified height onto the back-of-hand region of the glove. The glove is positioned over a rigid support with a calibrated force plate that measures peak transmitted force in kilonewtons (kN). The test fixture is designed to simulate the geometry of the human hand during a typical work posture.

Test Zones — Five Strike Locations Required

The standard requires impact testing at five distinct strike zones on the back of the hand:

The glove's performance level is determined by the worst zone — the zone that transmits the most force. A glove that achieves 4.0 kN on four zones but 6.4 kN on one zone earns Level 2 (not Level 3). This all-zones pass requirement is what makes the ANSI 138-2019 rating meaningful: there are no unprotected gaps across the back of the hand.

Conditioning

Prior to testing, glove samples are conditioned at standard ambient temperature and humidity. Unlike head protection standards (which test at high and low temperature extremes), ANSI 138-2019 currently tests only at ambient conditions. Employers working in extreme cold or heat environments should consult manufacturer data on thermal performance beyond what the standard covers.

What Changed in ANSI/ISEA 138-2019 vs. the 2010 Edition

The 2019 revision made three substantive changes that affect glove selection and procurement:

1. New Drop-Weight Test Method (Replaces Pendulum)

The 2010 edition used a pendulum striker — a method that proved difficult to standardize across different test laboratories, producing inconsistent results for the same glove model. The 2019 edition replaced it with a vertical drop-weight test that is more repeatable, better correlated to real-world impact events, and more widely adopted in comparable international standards. Gloves rated under 138-2010 cannot be directly compared to gloves rated under 138-2019 — the test method change means the force thresholds are not equivalent.

2. Addition of Level 3

The 2010 edition had only Level 1 and Level 2. The 2019 revision added Level 3 (≤ 4.0 kN maximum transmitted force) to address the needs of high-hazard industries — particularly oil and gas and structural ironwork — where Level 2 gloves were increasingly viewed as insufficient for the most severe impact scenarios. Level 3 is the highest rating under the current standard and is now commonly specified as mandatory for pipe-handling operations on drilling and completion sites.

3. Refined Five-Zone Protocol

The 2010 edition tested fewer zones with less rigorous positional requirements. The 2019 revision standardized the five-zone test protocol described above, ensuring that the entire dorsal hand surface — from primary knuckles through all three finger zones — must pass the claimed level threshold. This eliminates the possibility of a glove "passing" with strategic padding placement while leaving certain finger zones unprotected.

ANSI/ISEA 138-2019 Glove Markings — What to Look for When Buying

A glove cannot claim ANSI/ISEA 138-2019 compliance without carrying specific markings. Knowing how to read these markings is the single most important purchasing skill for safety managers and procurement teams.

Red flag: A glove that displays only a generic "impact protection" or "impact resistant" statement without the ANSI/ISEA 138-2019 citation and level number has not been tested to this standard. Many imported gloves carry impact-styled TPR dorsal padding without any third-party testing behind the claim. For procurement integrity on OSHA-required hand protection programs, always request the test report from a certified laboratory alongside the purchase.

ANSI/ISEA 138-2019 and OSHA Hand Protection Compliance

OSHA's hand protection standard for general industry — 29 CFR 1910.138 — requires employers to select and provide hand protection appropriate to the hazards present, including "severe cuts, lacerations, punctures, chemical burns, thermal burns, harmful temperature extremes, and impacts." It does not incorporate ANSI/ISEA 138 by reference (unlike head protection, where OSHA explicitly cites ANSI Z89.1).

However, OSHA's general approach — reinforced by the General Duty Clause (Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act) — requires employers to recognize and control hazards using recognized industry practices. ANSI/ISEA 138-2019 is the recognized industry practice for evaluating impact hand protection. In the event of an impact hand injury, OSHA investigators will evaluate whether the employer selected hand protection appropriate to the hazard — and an employer who specified a non-ANSI-rated glove for a documented impact environment will have a difficult defense.

For construction-side applications, OSHA 29 CFR 1926.28 and 29 CFR 1926.95 impose similar obligations for PPE selection in construction — see: OSHA Construction PPE Requirements — 29 CFR 1926 Overview and our full OSHA PPE Requirements for Construction.

Impact Protection + Cut Resistance — Understanding Dual-Rated Gloves

The most frequently purchased gloves in oil and gas, utilities, and heavy construction are dual-rated: ANSI/ISEA 138-2019 for impact combined with ANSI/ISEA 105-2016 for cut resistance. Understanding how these ratings interact is essential for correct specification.

• The ratings are independent. A glove rated ANSI 138 Level 2 / ANSI A4 Cut means it passed the Level 2 impact test AND the A4 cut test independently. Neither rating affects the other.
• Impact padding is on the back; cut resistance is on the palm. TPR knuckle guards and dorsal padding protect the back of the hand from impact. High-performance palm materials (HPPE, Dyneema, Kevlar, steel fiber blends) resist blade cuts on the palm and fingers.
• Higher cut levels may limit dexterity. A4–A9 cut-resistant palms are typically thicker and stiffer than lower cut levels. In applications requiring fine motor dexterity alongside impact protection, there is a trade-off between cut level and grip sensitivity.

Browse our full range of cut-resistant gloves and impact gloves, including dual-rated options. For a full guide to the ANSI/ISEA 105 cut level system, see: ANSI Cut Levels Explained — A1 Through A9 Glove Selection Guide. For editorial picks across all impact glove applications: Best Work Gloves 2026 — WC Safety Editorial Picks.

Selecting the Right ANSI 138 Level — A Practical Hazard-Based Framework

ANSI/ISEA 138-2019 does not prescribe which level applies to which job — that determination comes from the employer's hazard assessment. The following framework maps common industrial tasks to appropriate impact levels:

For a full hand protection selection guide covering all PPE standards and hazard types, see: Hand Protection Selection Guide — Matching Gloves to Hazards. Browse our full range of work gloves by application.

Hand Protection in Context — The Complete Construction and Industrial PPE Picture

Impact hand protection does not exist in isolation. Workers who face back-of-hand crush hazards typically face simultaneous hazards that trigger other PPE requirements:

• Head protection: Workers handling overhead loads, working under cranes, or operating in areas with falling-object risk also need ANSI Z89.1-compliant hard hats — see our construction PPE requirements guide
• Eye protection: Operations that generate impact risk to the hands often also generate flying debris requiring safety glasses rated to ANSI Z87.1
• High-visibility apparel: Outdoor construction and industrial sites with vehicle or equipment traffic require ANSI 107-compliant hi-vis clothing
• Fall protection: Workers at elevation performing rigging, ironwork, or pipe installation simultaneously need fall protection equipment compliant with ANSI Z359

Frequently Asked Questions — ANSI/ISEA 138-2019

Why Trust WC Safety?

WC Safety has supplied personal protective equipment and life-safety products to industrial facilities, contractors, municipalities, and safety professionals since 2012. Our editorial desk reviews ANSI/ISEA standards, OSHA regulatory text, and industry safety data to produce compliance guides that are accurate, actionable, and independent. We do not receive compensation from ISEA, ANSI, or any standards body.

Methodology

This reference guide was developed by reviewing the full text of ANSI/ISEA 138-2019 and its predecessor 138-2010, OSHA's hand protection standards 29 CFR 1910.138 and 1926.28, IADC industry guidance on hand protection in drilling operations, and published injury data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and National Safety Council. Performance level force thresholds (kN values) reflect the published 138-2019 standard. Employers should request third-party test certificates from suppliers and verify all glove performance claims before deployment in OSHA-required PPE programs.

Common questions

Does the rating on the box equal the protection I get?

No. Published ratings come from laboratory conditions. Regulators apply derating precisely because real fit is worse, and the derated figure is the one to plan from.

Which figure should a written program use?

The derated one, and the conservative derate where more than one applies. Planning on the label is how a worker ends up with less protection than the paperwork claims.

Who is responsible for providing this equipment?

Where a standard requires PPE for a hazard, the employer provides it at no cost to the employee, along with training in its use, care and limitations.

Does equipment expire?

Most of it does. Elastomers harden, foams stop rebounding, and coatings craze. A component past its service life can look perfectly serviceable and no longer perform.

Is a higher rating always better?

No. Over-protection carries its own hazards, from isolation from alarms to heat stress and reduced dexterity. Match the rating to the measured or assessed exposure.

What if two published sources disagree?

Treat it as unresolved and plan on the lower figure until the manufacturer or the marking on the item settles it. We flag these disagreements on the page rather than picking one.

Does a foreign approval count in the United States?

Generally no. US workplaces require the US approval - NIOSH for respirators, and the relevant ANSI standard for most other PPE. A CE, EN or AS/NZS mark describes a different test.

Is training required as well as equipment?

Where a standard requires PPE it almost always requires training with it: what the hazard is, how to fit and inspect the item, its limitations, and when to replace it.

Does PPE replace engineering controls?

No. PPE sits at the bottom of the hierarchy of controls. Where engineering or administrative controls can reduce the exposure, they are required first and PPE is not a substitute.

How do I know an item actually meets the standard it claims?

Look for the marking on the item itself, not the listing copy. Standards specify what must be stamped on the product, and a claim that appears only in a description is not a marking.

Do I need to keep records?

For most PPE-triggering standards, yes - hazard assessments, training, and where applicable monitoring or medical surveillance. The record is what demonstrates the program exists.

What should I check when equipment arrives?

That the markings match what was ordered, that nothing is damaged or past a stated shelf life, and that the size range actually covers the people who will wear it.

How often should this be reviewed?

Whenever the work changes, the equipment changes, or the standard is revised - and on a stated interval regardless, so the review happens even when nothing appears to have changed.

Where does the authoritative wording live?

In the regulation or consensus standard itself, not in a summary. Anything on this page is a reading of that text and the citation is given so it can be checked.

Does a higher price indicate better protection?

No. Protection is defined by the rating and the fit achieved, not the price. A correctly fitted inexpensive item outperforms a poorly fitted expensive one every time.

Sources. Requirements referenced here come from OSHA 29 CFR 1910 and the NIOSH recommendations. Where a consensus standard governs, the ANSI document is named in the text.

Related reference

If this page is part of a wider question, the neighbouring references are breakdown of niosh vs osha what do they do, ansi a4 vs a5 cut resistant gloves, ansi class a vs class b first aid kits, cut resistance glove levels explained ansi isea 105 a1 through a9, best cut resistant gloves for glass handling, best hand trucks for stairs, 3m respiratory protection complete guide and best fall protection kits. Each covers one standard or one figure, so they can be read in any order.

Further reading in the same area: best fall protection lanyards, best hearing protection, best in ear hearing protection for shooting, fall protection equipment guide, foam lined vs standard safety glasses, 10 year sealed vs replaceable battery smoke alarms, 3m 1860 vs 1870 plus, 3m 2071 vs 2078.

Neighbouring topics that come up in the same decision: 3m 2071 vs 2097, 3m 2091 vs 2097 filter, 3m 2091 vs 2291, 3m 2091 vs d3091, 3m 2091 vs honeywell north 7580p100, 3m 2096 vs 2097, 3m 2097 vs 2297, 3m 2097 vs 60921.

Why trust WC Safety

WC Safety is an independent, affiliate-supported review site. It is not a retailer: it holds no inventory, takes no orders, and earns only from qualifying purchases through clearly marked links — which never changes what a product is rated to do. Standards language is taken from the regulation text directly, and ratings are reported as the manufacturer publishes them. We run no laboratory and perform no testing of our own. Where published sources disagree, we say so and plan on the conservative figure rather than the flattering one.

Our methodology

Figures come from the regulation and the published specification, in that order. Derated numbers are calculated, not estimated. Nothing here is presented as a measured result, because we measure nothing.

Researched and written by Steven Eaton, editor of WC Safety. Steven holds no safety certification and does not test products; this page compares what manufacturers and regulators publish, with the gaps in that record marked. Last reviewed August 2026.