Why ATEX zones need a resistance number — and why “anti-static” is not “insulating”
Two gloves can both carry the word “anti-static” on a spec sheet — one dissipates a static charge before it can spark, the other does nothing of the sort — and handing the wrong one to someone stepping into a solvent-vapour zone is how a compliantlooking glove closet still ends in an incident report.
The hook: one word, two very different jobs
Ask an EHS coordinator to picture an “anti-static glove” and most picture the same thing: something safe around sensitive electronics or a flammable atmosphere. Ask what number backs that word up, and the room usually goes quiet. “Anti-static” is a marketing adjective, not a certification — it can sit on a glove tested to EN 16350:2014, on a glove tested to nothing at all, or, more dangerously, on an electrically insulating glove rated to block current, a different product solving the opposite problem. In a zoned area that mix-up isn’t academic: it’s the difference between a glove that bleeds a static charge safely to earth and one that lets a charge build until it has nowhere to go but a spark.
The decode: what EN 16350 actually measures
| Property tested | Method | Requirement |
| Vertical electrical resistance through the glove material | EN 1149-2 — electrodes on opposite faces, fixed voltage, controlled ~23°C / 25% RH atmosphere | Below 10⁸ Ω (100 megohms) to qualify as electrostatic-dissipative |
Two points matter more than the raw number. This is a different test from EN 1149-1 (surface resistance) and EN 1149-3 (charge decay), which apply to garments; gloves are tested through the material because the hand is the contact point. And the protection is conditional — a glove only performs when the wearer is also earthed through a resistance in the same broad range; earthing stays part of the risk control, not something a glove substitutes for. Zoned-area gloves are specified by standard number, not an informal “anti-static” line: SATRA’s guidance on EN ISO 21420 confirms a glove electrostatic claim, and its pictogram, require separate certification testing — tighter than the older EN 420 practice of ad hoc reference across EN 1149’s several parts. The glove standard that closes that gap is EN 16350:2014.
Why this sits inside ATEX rules: under the UK’s Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations, employers must classify hazardous areas into zones and control every plausible ignition source inside — HSE guidance names static electricity as one of those sources, and requires clothing that doesn’t itself create a discharge-ignition risk. The mechanism: friction builds a static charge; without a low-resistance path to earth, it accumulates until it sparks — the ignition event zoning exists to prevent.
The confusion: anti-static is not insulating
The costliest mix-up here isn’t a misread standard — it’s treating an EN 16350 glove and an electrically insulating glove as the same PPE category. They solve opposite problems.
| EN 16350 anti-static / ESD glove | Electrically insulating glove | |
| Purpose | Bleed a static charge away quickly | Block current flow entirely |
| Design target | LOW resistance (< 10⁸ Ω) | HIGH dielectric strength, rated by voltage class |
| Governing standard | EN 16350:2014, tested to EN 1149-2 | IEC 60903 (Live working — Electrical insulating gloves); in the US, rubber insulating gloves fall under OSHA 29 CFR 1910.137, Class 00–4 |
| Wrong-glove risk | Worn for live electrical work — built to conduct, so no shock protection | Worn in a zoned area — no path to bleed static, so charge can build until it sparks |
OSHA’s electrical protective equipment rule shows how unforgiving the insulating side is: rubber insulating gloves are voltageclass rated, electrically tested before first issue and on a fixed re-test interval, and pulled at the first sign of a defect. None of that overlaps with EN 16350 — a glove can be excellent at blocking current and still hold a static charge all shift, or excellently dissipative and offer zero protection from a live conductor. The two ratings sit at opposite ends of the same property — which is why the two words get treated as synonyms by anyone who hasn’t read the actual number.
Reading a real glove: ST-2066 Nitri-Max
STEGO’s GRYX-platform Nitri-Max ST-2066 is a useful literacy example: its public Article Data Sheet keeps the electrostatic rating distinct from, not folded into, its other certifications:
EN 16350:2014 — Electrostatic Properties, Vertical Electrical Resistance, tested to EN 1149-2 EN 388:2016+A1:2018 — mechanical risk (abrasion, cut, tear, puncture, TDM cut) EN 407:2020 — thermal risk, alongside a separate ANSI/ISEA 105 Conductive Heat rating EN ISO 21420:2020+A1:2024 — general requirements, Dexterity 5, CAT II Materials line (as printed): Anti-Static Nylon+Spandex liner, smooth-and-sandy nitrile coating
Nowhere on that sheet is a voltage class or any claim of shock protection — correctly, since EN 16350 was never designed to make that claim. The ADS lists what was tested and nothing more.
Practical takeaways for an EHS selection review
1. Ask for the standard number, not the adjective. “Anti-static” isn’t a certification — confirm EN 16350:2014 specifically before issuing gloves for a zoned task.
2. Never treat EN 16350 and an insulating-glove voltage class as substitutes. One dissipates charge, the other blocks current — using either for the other’s job removes the protection the task needs.
3. Remember earthing is part of the system. EN 16350’s own scope ties glove performance to the wearer being earthed bonding stays in the risk assessment even with certified gloves.
4. Specify the standard by number in procurement documents, not as a generic “ESD-safe” line, so what’s ordered matches what the task requires.
5. Check dexterity alongside the electrostatic rating. ATEX-zone tasks often need fine motor control too — EN ISO 21420’s dexterity score sits on the same sheet.
Where STEGO fits
STEGO’s Nitri-Max ST-2066 publishes its EN 16350:2014 electrostatic rating on the same Article Data Sheet as its EN 388 mechanical and EN 407 thermal marks — each standard cited by number, each test kept distinct. That’s the label literacy worth expecting from any glove headed into a zoned area: the certification should name exactly what was tested, not just promise “antistatic” and leave the rest to assumption.
