Making Hand Protection Work for Road Crews
Highway construction brings together a wide range of activities, often within the same working day. A crew installing steel safety barriers may also be handling concrete components, repairing drainage or preparing equipment for resurfacing, moving between materials and tools that present very different risks to their hands. Sharp metal edges, abrasive surfaces, wet cement and heated materials each require appropriate protection
The gloves used must allow workers to handle equipment comfortably and maintain control of the job, a balance that is not always straightforward. A glove offering substantial cut resistance may be unnecessarily restrictive for precision work, while a lightweight design that performs well during general handling may provide insufficient protection against chemicals or heat. Fit, grip and dexterity influence how effectively a glove can be used, making the practical demands of the operation just as relevant to selection as the protection ratings printed on the product.
Briefing
- Highway construction exposes workers to mechanical, chemical, thermal and environmental hand hazards.
- EN 388:2016+A1:2018 covers mechanical protection, including ISO 13997 cut-resistance classifications from A to F.
- Wet cement requires suitable chemical protection, while hot asphalt and thermoplastic road-marking materials introduce thermal hazards.
- Anti-vibration gloves should not be relied upon to prevent hand-arm vibration syndrome when using breakers and other vibrating equipment.
- Task-based specifications and wearer trials can help contractors balance protection, usability, durability and replacement costs.
Matching Protection to Highway Work
Installing steel barriers and handling fabricated sign supports can expose workers to sharp edges, while kerb laying, drainage repairs and general civil engineering work involve repeated contact with abrasive materials. Technicians assembling small components or carrying out equipment maintenance may need considerably more fingertip control than workers handling heavy sections of steel, even when both activities take place on the same site.
Mechanical protection is commonly assessed against EN 388:2016+A1:2018, which covers abrasion, cutting, tearing and puncture resistance, with an optional provision for impact protection. The standard provides a useful starting point for comparing products, although understanding the individual markings is important when specifying gloves for particular applications.
The 2016 revision introduced a separate cut-resistance classification based on the ISO 13997 test, expressed through letters from A to F. This measures the force required for a blade to cut through the glove material and is particularly relevant when assessing materials that blunt the blade used in the traditional Coupe test. Where blade dulling affects the Coupe result, the ISO 13997 method becomes the reference for cut resistance.
An X in the marking indicates that a particular test was not performed or was not applicable, rather than representing a failed performance level. The numerical Coupe rating and the ISO 13997 letter classification use different methods and should not be treated as interchangeable measures.
These distinctions become useful when specifying gloves for work involving sheet steel, reinforcement or sharp-edged fabricated components. A higher cut rating may be justified for one operation, while the additional bulk or stiffness associated with some protective materials may be undesirable when handling smaller fixings or operating controls. Protection must also be considered alongside the equipment being used, particularly around rotating machinery where gloves can introduce an entanglement hazard.
Fit, Grip and Hand Fatigue
Glove sizing is easily overlooked during purchasing, although small differences in fit can affect the way tools and materials are handled. Excess material around the fingertips can reduce control, while a glove that is too tight may restrict movement and make repetitive gripping uncomfortable.
The effects become more noticeable during prolonged work. A road worker repeatedly positioning kerbs, handling tools or operating equipment needs sufficient flexibility to maintain a secure grip without unnecessary effort. Gloves that bunch, slip or restrict finger movement can interfere with these operations, particularly when accuracy is required or surfaces are wet.
Materials and construction influence performance alongside sizing. Fine-gauge knitted liners can reduce bulk, while different palm coatings offer varying levels of grip on dry, wet or oily surfaces. Breathability is another consideration during physically demanding work, especially in warmer conditions when perspiration can make gloves uncomfortable over an extended shift.
Manufacturer sizing charts provide a useful starting point, but practical trials remain valuable. Testing gloves during representative activities allows workers to assess fingertip control, grip security and comfort, revealing difficulties that may not be apparent from technical specifications alone.
Wet Conditions and Chemical Exposure
Drainage maintenance, concrete repairs, road sealing and equipment servicing expose highway workers to water, oils, fuels, cementitious materials and a variety of chemical products. A glove selected primarily for abrasion or cut resistance may provide inadequate protection against these substances, even when it performs well during general handling.
Wet cement presents a particularly serious hazard. Its alkaline nature can cause chemical burns and irritant dermatitis, while exposure to hexavalent chromium compounds can cause allergic contact dermatitis. The UK Health and Safety Executive’s guidance on cement exposure recommends waterproof gloves with suitable resistance to alkaline substances, including products with appropriate EN ISO 374 chemical resistance classifications. Some nitrile and PVC gloves may be suitable, depending on their specifications, while long or close-fitting cuffs can help prevent contaminated material entering the glove.
Chemical protection must be assessed against the substance involved, the glove material and the expected duration of exposure. Cement manufacturers commonly add reducing agents to limit soluble hexavalent chromium, although their effectiveness is time-dependent, making storage conditions and the shelf date of bagged cement relevant to safe handling. Waterproofing alone does not establish chemical suitability, and protection against mechanical hazards under EN 388 cannot be treated as evidence of chemical resistance.
Contamination inside the glove also needs attention. Wet cement trapped against the skin can cause serious injury, making suitable cuffs, correct removal procedures and washing facilities important parts of the protective arrangements. Gloves should be replaced when damaged or contaminated in ways that compromise their protection.
Cold and wet weather add further demands, particularly during winter maintenance and exposed drainage work. Thermal insulation and water resistance can improve comfort, but bulky materials may reduce dexterity or make smaller controls difficult to operate. Grip performance also changes when tools and components become wet or oily, making the working environment an important consideration alongside the hazards presented by the material itself.
Heat and Hot-Material Handling
Asphalt paving, crack sealing and thermoplastic road marking introduce thermal hazards that differ substantially from those encountered during general construction work. Conventional hot-mix asphalt is commonly laid at temperatures around 140–160°C, while thermoplastic road-marking materials may be applied at approximately 180–200°C, depending on the product and application method. Contact with heated materials or equipment can cause serious burns, particularly where molten material adheres to clothing or becomes trapped against the skin.
EN 407:2020 addresses protective gloves against thermal risks, including contact heat and other specified heat hazards. Its performance markings can help distinguish gloves intended for thermal exposure from those designed primarily for mechanical protection, although the appropriate rating depends on the temperatures, contact conditions and duration of exposure involved.
A glove suitable for briefly handling a hot tool or component is not necessarily appropriate for contact with molten bitumen or thermoplastic material. Such operations require a broader assessment of the risk of splashes, material adhesion and heat transfer, alongside suitable equipment, working methods and protective clothing. The potential for hot material to enter a glove or become trapped against the skin is particularly important when considering cuffs and the design of the protective ensemble.
Road surfacing teams may also move between hot-material handling and ordinary mechanical tasks during the same operation. The glove selected for one activity cannot automatically be assumed suitable for the next, especially where greater thermal protection introduces additional bulk or reduces handling precision.
Vibration and the Limits of Protective Gloves
Road breakers, hammer drills, compactors and other vibrating equipment present a different problem. Prolonged exposure to hand-arm vibration can damage nerves, blood vessels and joints, potentially leading to hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS), a condition associated with numbness, reduced grip strength and impaired circulation.
Anti-vibration gloves are available and can be tested against EN ISO 10819, but certification should not be interpreted as evidence that they will prevent HAVS during construction work. The Health and Safety Executive’s guidance on vibration in construction states that gloves do not provide protection against vibration and should be used to keep hands warm. Reducing exposure depends on the equipment, the way it is operated and the duration of use, rather than relying on protective gloves.
Gloves may still be needed for grip and abrasion protection, particularly when handling rough materials or working in cold conditions. Equipment selection, maintenance and the organisation of work remain central to controlling vibration exposure, while gloves that restrict movement or require excessive gripping force may make tool operation more difficult.
Touchscreen Compatibility
Digital equipment is now part of routine highway construction and maintenance, with tablets and smartphones used to access drawings, record inspections, photograph completed work and manage safety documentation. Workers may need to move repeatedly between these devices and conventional tools, sometimes in wet or dirty conditions.
Touchscreen-compatible gloves can reduce the need to remove protection during these activities, although compatibility varies between products and devices and should be checked during practical trials. The ability to operate a screen does not establish that a glove is suitable for the surrounding physical work, particularly where the same technician is handling sharp components or using equipment with specific grip requirements.
For some roles, a lightweight glove offering good fingertip control may be the most practical choice. Others may require greater cut resistance, waterproofing or thermal protection, with touchscreen functionality considered alongside the more immediate hazards of the job.
Testing Gloves Before Wider Adoption
Wearer trials allow contractors to examine how protective gloves behave under actual working conditions rather than relying entirely on published specifications. A glove may achieve the required mechanical rating but prove uncomfortable during repetitive handling, lose grip when contaminated with oil or deteriorate more quickly than expected when exposed to abrasive materials.
Trials are most useful when they involve representative activities and structured feedback from the people carrying out the work. Barrier installation, kerb laying, drainage maintenance and equipment servicing can each reveal different limitations, while observations from supervisors can help establish whether gloves are being used consistently and replaced at appropriate intervals.
Durability also affects purchasing decisions. The lowest unit price does not necessarily represent the lowest cost over a period of use, particularly where gloves require frequent replacement. Equally, a more expensive product needs to demonstrate a practical advantage through appropriate protection, longer service life or improved usability rather than price being treated as an indicator of quality.
The findings can support a task-based selection matrix, grouping activities with comparable hazards and performance requirements. This allows purchasing teams to maintain a manageable range of products while giving supervisors a clearer basis for specifying protection as working methods, materials and equipment change.
SHOWA’s Approach to Glove Selection
Hand protection manufacturer SHOWA offers products and material technologies intended for different construction applications. Its RECYCLED MFT PRO GP381E is marketed for lightweight handling and dexterity, with published ratings of EN 388 4121A and EN 407 X1XXXX. These indicate ISO 13997 cut-resistance level A and contact-heat performance level 1, illustrating why the glove’s suitability must be considered against the task rather than assuming it provides the protection required for demanding steel handling or high-temperature operations.
The company’s DURACoil® and S-TEX® technologies are associated with cut-resistant applications, while the TEMRES® range includes products developed for wet working conditions. Individual models must still be assessed against the hazards involved, particularly where chemical exposure or thermal protection is required.
Through its Sentinel by SHOWA programme, the company offers a structured approach to workplace hand protection built around five phases: evaluate, benchmark, implement, measure and manage. The programme includes a glove board that identifies suitable products for different tasks, providing a practical reference for workers and supervisors when selecting protection.
Highway contractors frequently need several glove specifications across their operations, with different requirements for mechanical handling, wet work, chemical exposure and thermal protection. Maintaining a manageable selection depends on understanding those differences, testing products under working conditions and reviewing performance as materials and equipment change.
Key Industry Questions
- What does EN 388 measure? EN 388 assesses mechanical protection against abrasion, cutting, tearing and puncture, with optional impact protection testing. Its markings help compare gloves against particular mechanical hazards.
- What do the A–F cut-resistance ratings mean? They represent performance levels under the ISO 13997 cut test, based on the force needed to cut through the material. F is the highest classification, while X indicates that a test was not performed or was not applicable.
- Are cut-resistant gloves suitable for wet concrete? Not necessarily. Wet cement requires waterproof gloves with appropriate resistance to alkaline substances. Mechanical cut resistance alone does not establish chemical protection.
- What gloves are suitable for hot asphalt and bitumen? Selection depends on temperature, contact duration, splash risks and the material involved. EN 407 thermal protection ratings can inform selection, but suitability for molten materials requires particular care.
- Do anti-vibration gloves prevent HAVS? They should not be relied upon to do so. HSE guidance prioritises reducing vibration exposure through equipment selection, maintenance and working methods.
- Can touchscreen gloves be used for highway maintenance? Yes, where their protective properties are appropriate for the work. Compatibility with the intended devices should be tested alongside grip, dexterity and other requirements.
- How can contractors assess glove durability? Representative wearer trials can record wear, damage and replacement frequency, allowing comparisons based on usable service life rather than purchase price alone.
- When should glove specifications be reviewed? Reviews are appropriate when materials, equipment or working methods change, or when inspections and workforce feedback indicate that existing protection is unsuitable.
Strategic Takeaways
- Highway operations require different combinations of mechanical, chemical and thermal protection, making a single universal glove specification difficult to justify.
- EN 388, EN ISO 374 and EN 407 address different hazards, and certification must be interpreted against the intended application.
- Vibration exposure cannot be controlled through glove selection alone, with equipment and working methods remaining central to prevention.
- Wearer trials can reveal differences in grip, comfort and durability that are not apparent from published protection ratings.
- A task-based purchasing approach can reduce unnecessary product variation while providing more appropriate protection across different operations.
