Canadian Occupational Safety

April/May 2016 25 by needlesticks and sharps (needles or other articles that can cause wounds or punctures). According to the Interna- tional Safety Equipment Association (ISEA), the inclusion of this test rec- ognizes the hazard that needlestick exposure presents to workers in the medical, sanitation and recycling industries. Bert Steingard, sales manager at Northern Safety in Barrie, Ont., says the wider range of categories refl ects the greater variety of cut resistant yarns and materials available on the market today, compared to when the standard was fi rst published. Ten to 15 years ago, employers had few options for glove materials. Today, many yarns are com- bined with components such as steel, polyester and fi breglass, and there are far more materials to choose from. "The technology is taking us to a point where we can achieve much higher levels of cut resistance. Thus, the old cut level 5, which simply said '3500 grams and higher,' has been replaced by the new cut level 5 (2200 to 2999 grams) and there are an additional four ratings above it. As new technology and new products come out that are higher and higher in cut resistance, we will need these categories to be able to correctly place them into a category that makes sense," says Steingard. "Not only have they been able to increase the top end, the highest- performing gloves, but right in the middle the old cut levels 4 and 5, where most of the marketplace is — they've stretched that out so that the gloves in those categories can be represented more accurately as to the results they achieve." By the end of the year, Reid says, most industry leaders will be using the new standard. "And, if the leaders in the market are using it, this will drive other compa- nies toward the new standard." Steingard says it will probably take a while for end users to get used to the new standard. They will need to understand the new cut levels and how they relate to the old ones, especially in relation to the products they've been buying. "There will be a learning curve. But really, it's about more accurate information. The new system is good because it will make it easier for the purchaser to know what they're getting. They'll have more accurate information about the product they're buying," he says. "So, it might be more confusing in the short term, but in the long term, it's well worth making the change." Linda Johnson is a freelance writer based in Toronto. She can be reached at lindajohnson@sympatico.ca. to the requirements of the revised designations. The adoption of this alpha-numeric cut level system will reduce the confusion some customers have had between the ANSI and the European standards, both of which, until now, have used only a numeric grading system, says Gelpke. The new standard also requires testing be done using a single testing device and method: the ASTM F2992- 15 method on a tomodynamometer (TDM). Earlier editions of the standard had allowed manufacturers to select which method they wanted to use: generally, either the cut protection per- formance test (CPPT), associated with ASTM F1790-97 method, or the TDM- 100, associated with ASTM F1790-05 method). With the CPPT device, the blade cuts vertically and the reference distance is 25 millimetres, while the TDM cuts horizontally and the refer- ence distance is 20 millimetres. One major problem with accepting the use of either machine is that test results between the two devices some- times varied, Reid says. "Part of that variation is caused by the device, but it's also due to the method that it's tied to. There could be signifi cant differences in the test results; not in all glove products but in many glove products. So, going with one device makes it more standard. You have something that everybody is using," he says. Another important change to the standard is the addition of a hypoder- mic needle puncture resistance test. While there was a puncture resistance test in previous editions, it did not refl ect many of the exposures presented Grams 2016 Revised ANSI/ISEA 105 Pre-2016 ANSI/ISEA 105 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 500 1000 1500 4500 5000 5500 6000 A1 A2 2 3 4 5 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 Source: HexArmor Comparing ANSI/ISEA 105 cut standards

• Cover