The Dorsal Impact Standard — Reading Level 1, 2, and 3 Correctly
A “P” on an EN 388 shield and a “LEVEL 2” pictogram both claim impact protection. They come from different standards, test different zones of the hand, and use different pass/fail logic — treating one as a stronger version of the other is how a buyer selects a glove that protects the wrong part of the hand.
The hook: two markings, one wrong assumption
A supervisor is choosing a glove for a crew handling steel pipe. One candidate’s label carries a small “P” inside an EN 388 shield. The other carries a yellow pictogram reading “ANSI/ISEA 138 LEVEL 2.” Both claim impact protection. Most buyers assume the graded number is the more rigorous test — “Level 2 of 3” reads as stronger than a single letter.
That assumption doesn’t hold. EN 388’s “P” and ANSI/ISEA 138’s Level 1–3 scale come from two different standards, tested on different zones, against different pass bars, using different pass/fail logic. Neither is inherently stronger — they answer different questions. Reading a “P” as weaker than a “Level 2,” or assuming both were tested the same way, is the literacy gap ANSI/ISEA 138-2019 exists to close.
Why dorsal impact needed its own standard
U.S. glove standards long covered cuts, punctures, abrasion, and chemical exposure — but, per ISEA’s own scope statement for the standard, “there has been no standardized approach to address dorsal or back-of-hand injuries such as bone breakage and fractures, bruising and finger pinching.” ANSI/ISEA 138-2019 — the standard’s first edition — closes that gap: testing, classification, and labeling requirements for gloves claiming to dissipate impact force on the knuckles and fingers, scoped to automotive, heavy equipment, construction, cargo handling, oil & gas, and towing/transportation — work where a struck-by or pinch-point event is routine. ISEA notes hand injuries rank high among all workplace injury types, “with an average total cost per incident of more than $22,000 according to some reports.”
What Level 1, 2, and 3 actually test
Testing applies a calibrated drop-mass striker to points on the glove’s knuckle region and finger/thumb region — 8 recorded strikes across the knuckle sites, 10 across the finger and thumb sites — with a force transducer capturing transmitted force at each strike, in kilonewtons (kN). The knuckle-zone and finger-zone results are calculated independently, and the glove is classified at the LOWER of the two: strong finger protection doesn’t offset a weaker knuckle result.
| Level | Mean transmitted force | Reading it |
| 1 | ≤ 9 kN | The standard’s minimum graded level |
| 2 | ≤ 6.5 kN | The middle graded level |
| 3 | ≤ 4 kN | The highest graded level under the standard |
What follows: the number runs opposite to EN 388’s cut and abrasion scales. A LOWER kN threshold means MORE force absorbed, so Level 3 is the strongest claim — the inverse of “bigger number, better glove.”
How this differs from EN 388’s impact position
| EN 388 Position 6 (“P”) | ANSI/ISEA 138-2019 | |
| Zones tested | Knuckle/back-of-hand only | Knuckle AND finger/thumb, scored separately |
| EN 388 Position 6 (“P”) | ANSI/ISEA 138-2019 | |
| Result | Pass/fail (P, or no marking) | Three graded levels (1, 2, 3) |
| Pass bar | ≤ 7.0 kN mean | Level-dependent: ≤ 9 / ≤ 6.5 / ≤ 4 kN mean |
| Home standard | EN 13594:2015 (motorcycle-glove test) | ANSI/ISEA 138-2019 (purpose-built for work gloves) |
In practice: a glove can clear EN 388’s “P” at, say, 6.8 kN mean and still fall short of ANSI/ISEA 138 Level 2, which requires at or below 6.5 kN. The two marks don’t convert into each other — a “P” tells a U.S. buyer nothing about which ANSI/ISEA 138 level, if any, that same glove would achieve.
Reading it on a real glove: ST-9083
STEGO’s SHELL Series ST-9083 (SHELL GRD™, impact+cut+hi-vis) is a useful example: its public Article Data Sheet carries both markings side by side — an EN 388 “P” AND a separate ANSI/ISEA 138-2019 Level 2 (≤ 6.5 kN) pictogram. The “P” alone confirms the 7.0 kN European bar cleared at the knuckle. The ANSI/ISEA 138 line adds what the “P” doesn’t: both the knuckle and finger/thumb zones were tested under the tighter 6.5 kN American bar, and the weaker zone still cleared it. The ADS credits the absorption to ShockShell™ — compressive TPR zones in the back-of-hand construction — with TaskCore™ aligning coverage to the areas a drilling or material-handling crew is most likely to strike.
Practical takeaways for an EHS selection review
1. Don’t rank a “P” against a Level 1/2/3 number. Different tests, different zones, different pass bars — there’s no valid conversion between them.
2. Remember the direction reverses. A lower kN threshold means MORE protection under ANSI/ISEA 138 — the opposite of EN 388’s numbered scales.
3. Check which zone set the rating. A Level 2 glove is Level 2 at its weaker zone — ask whether that was knuckle or finger/thumb if the task concentrates risk on one.
4. Match the standard to the actual exposure, not the glove’s other numbers. A high cut grade says nothing about dorsal impact — verify the impact marking independently for struck-by or pinch-point risk.
Where STEGO fits
STEGO publishes ANSI/ISEA 138-2019 markings directly on its SHELL GRD™ Article Data Sheets alongside the EN 388 shield — neither one borrowed to imply the other. That reflects how the platform gets engineered: STEGO calls its development process “Decomposition of Risk,” starting from the hazard rather than the label. For any struck-by or pinch-point task, the ANSI/ISEA 138 level is the number to check first.
