Reading the six-position heat-and-flame code, and why five X’s can still be a pass
A glove stamped with the EN 407 flame-and-shield pictogram is not automatically “heat resistant.” It’s a report card on six independent thermal tests, and a glove can legitimately wear the mark while claiming a result on only one of them — the other five sitting honestly at X.
The hook: one pictogram, six separate claims
An EHS buyer scanning a spec sheet sees the EN 407 flame icon next to a string like “X1XXXX” and reads it as one thing: this glove handles heat. It doesn’t say that. EN 407:2020 packs six unrelated thermal properties — flame spread, contact heat, convective heat, radiant heat, and two molten-metal splash tests — into one six-character code, the same label logic EN 388 uses for mechanical risk. Read it as one number and a glove built to survive a brief touch against a warm surface can get issued to someone standing at a foundry pour. The fix is the same as EN 388: read six positions, not one pictogram.
The decode: what each position actually tests
| Position | Property | Method (normative reference) | Scale |
| 1 — Limited flame spread | After-flame / after-glow once a test flame is removed | EN 407’s own flame- application test | 1–4, or X |
| 2 — Contact heat | Time before the glove’s interior rises 10°C against a hot surface (100–500°C) | EN ISO 12127-1:2015 | 1–4, or X |
| 3 — Convective heat | Heat-transfer delay through the material against a gas-flame source | EN ISO 9151:2016 | 1–4, or X |
| 4 — Radiant heat | Heat-transfer delay against an infrared radiant source | EN ISO 6942:2002 | 1–4, or X |
| 5 — Small splashes of molten metal | Number of molten-metal droplets needed to raise the reverse- side temperature by 40°C | EN 348:1992 | 1–4, or X |
| 6 — Large quantities of molten metal | Grams of molten iron poured over the sample before a PVC backing film registers damage | EN ISO 9185:2007 | 1–4, or X |
EN 407 has no “0.” EN 388’s mechanical tests can report 0 — a documented fail below the Level 1 minimum. EN 407 doesn’t carry that state: every position is either rated 1–4 or marked X, meaning simply not tested or not claimed. Importing the EN 388 habit and reading an EN 407 X as “failed” is the single most common misread on this label — there is no failed state here, only claimed or not-claimed.
Level 3 and 4 on positions 2–4 have a gate. A glove can only report Level 3 or 4 for contact, convective, or radiant heat if it also clears Level 3 minimum on position 1 (limited flame spread). Miss that threshold and the maximum reportable on those three properties caps at Level 2 — regardless of the raw test result. A “2” on contact heat next to an X on flame spread isn’t underperformance; the glove may simply not have been submitted for the flame test, a valid choice outside flame-hazard tasks.
Two pictograms exist since 2020, and they can’t mix. The revision split the mark into a flame pictogram (used when flame spread is claimed at Level 1+) and a hot-contact-only pictogram (used when it isn’t) — a glove cannot carry both. Checking which pictogram is printed tells a buyer, before reading a single digit, whether any flame resistance is claimed at all.
What the 2020 revision changed
EN 407:2020 replaces the 2004 edition. Beyond the pictogram split, the revision tightened the flame-application test (a single 10second exposure with an inserted metal rod, versus the old two-exposure method), simplified the mechanical precursor to a single minimum tear-resistance value, and extended scope to domestic-market gloves (oven mitts, barbecue gloves) for the first time. A 2004-era code and a 2020 code aren’t measuring identically defined properties — treat the two editions as different documents, not different revisions of the same number.
Reading a real glove: ST-9080
STEGO’s SHELL Series ST-9080 is a clean example. Its Article Data Sheet lists EN 407:2020 — X1XXXX:
X flame spread — not claimed 1 contact heat — Level 1 (resists a 100°C surface for the required duration without a 10°C interior rise) X · X · X · X — convective heat, radiant heat, small splash, large splash — none claimed
Read correctly, this is an impact-and-cut mechanical glove with one tested, honestly documented heat property — not a welding or foundry glove borrowing a heat pictogram it hasn’t earned. Worth a second look on the same sheet: STEGO also lists an ASTM F1060 conductive-heat figure next to the EN 407 line — a separate North American standard with its own scale. The two numbers sit side by side; they are not the same measurement, and reading one as the other will misquote the glove’s actual heat rating.
Practical takeaways for an EHS selection review
- Read all six positions before deciding a glove is “heat resistant.” One claimed property does not imply the other five.
- Never read an X as a fail. EN 407 has no 0 — X means not tested or not claimed, full stop.
- Check which pictogram is printed before reading the digits. Flame vs. hot-contact-only tells you the claim’s basic shape in one glance.
- Don’t assume a Level 2 on positions 2–4 signals a weak glove. It may simply reflect that flame spread wasn’t tested — a valid choice outside flame-hazard tasks.
- Match every position to the actual exposure, and don’t conflate a nearby ASTM or other national-standard number with the EN 407 figure on the same sheet.
Where STEGO fits
Wherever a STEGO hand-protection glove carries a thermal rating, its Article Data Sheet prints the full six-position EN 407:2020 marking exactly as tested — including the X’s, with nothing rounded up to look more protective. The SHELL Series ST-9080 marking above is typical of how STEGO documents thermal performance: a single Level 1 contact-heat rating standing on its own, not dressed up as broader heat protection it never claimed.
