ANSI Cut A1-A9 vs EN 388 B-F
Explains why the two systems cannot be treated as a simple one-to-one conversion and how to write task-based selection notes.
Request PDF
| Standard Family | PPE Type | What It Helps Clarify | Common Buyer Question |
|---|---|---|---|
| ANSI Z89.1-2014 | Head Protection | Type I or II and Class E, G or C language for industrial helmets and hard hats. | Do we need top impact only, lateral impact, or electrical class notes? |
| EN 397:2012+A1:2012 | Head Protection | European industrial safety helmet performance references and optional marking context. | Which EN markings should be shown in the purchasing file? |
| ANSI/ISEA Z87.1-2020 | Eye & Face Protection | High impact, lens marking, splash, dust and face shield selection language. | How do we compare clear, transition and shaded lens families? |
| EN 166:2001 | Eye & Face Protection | Optical class, mechanical strength and field-of-use symbols for eyewear. | Which lens notes belong in an EU-facing specification? |
| ANSI/ISEA 105-2024 | Hand & Arm Protection | Cut A1-A9, puncture, abrasion and related glove performance vocabulary. | Is the task an A4, A6 or A9 conversation? |
| EN 388:2016+A1:2018 | Hand & Arm Protection | Abrasion, cut, tear, puncture and ISO cut letters for glove comparison. | How do EN letters compare with ANSI cut levels? |
Explains why the two systems cannot be treated as a simple one-to-one conversion and how to write task-based selection notes.
Request PDFClarifies the difference between top impact, lateral impact and electrical class language for multi-crew purchasing files.
Request PDFOutlines the questions to ask when workers move between indoor assembly, outdoor glare and humid work areas.
Request PDFDocuments why eyewear and face shields are often paired, and where splash or flying particle assumptions must be explicit.
Request PDFProvides a structured way to compare grip, cut comfort, dexterity, heat buildup and replacement feedback by task.
Request PDFTurns an EHS specification into product, training and reorder language a distributor can use without adding unsupported claims.
Request PDFProduct family, intended task notes, sizing range, replacement guidance and compatible accessory assumptions.
Relevant ANSI, EN or ISEA marking language with year, test context and limits of the claim clearly separated.
Cleaning, inspection, storage and withdrawal-from-service language that supervisors can repeat consistently.
Fit, dexterity, fogging, grip, comfort, failure mode and worker acceptance categories for field validation.
Approval language must be handled carefully. OSHA workplace rules support compliance programs, but OSHA does not approve products. NIOSH approval language only belongs on applicable respiratory products with a specific approval number, such as a TC-84A series identifier; that is outside the three HexArmor categories configured for this site unless a buyer submits a separate respirator request.
Start with the exposure. Electrical work, lateral impact risk, chin strap expectations and accessory use change the wording that belongs in the request.
No. The systems should be explained side by side with the task, edge type and desired dexterity, then attached to a trial scorecard.
Lens tint and coating decisions still depend on glare, humidity, fogging, splash and worker acceptance. The library helps define the questions.
Send the standard, product family and workplace context. A technical response can explain the language you can use, the limits of that language and the documents that should stay attached to the decision.