If you work in construction, metal fabrication, material handling, manufacturing, or utilities, abrasion is one of the most common hazards workers face. Nearly every task involves handling rough, textured, or heavy materials that create constant friction on the hands.  

It’s also one of the primary causes of early glove failure. Once an abrasion hazard wears through a glove’s coating or outer fabric, the hand becomes vulnerable to secondary hazards like cuts, punctures, and impact injuries. 

For safety managers, these failures are more than an inconvenience. They drive glove turnover, increase budget spend, and, most importantly, put workers at risk. 

To help safety teams choose the right hand protection, two major standards define how abrasion is measured: ANSI/ISEA 105 (used in North America) and EN 388 (used internationally) - read more on hand safety here. Each uses different test methods, such as the ASTM Taber and Martindale tests, to classify how well a material withstands wear.  

This blog breaks down the different types of abrasion hazards, how abrasion is tested, the benefits of abrasion-resistant gloves, and the materials that offer the highest levels of abrasion protection.  

Buckle up, there’s a lot of information here.  

What is abrasion resistance in safety gloves?  

Abrasion resistance refers to how well a glove material can withstand friction-based wear. Any time a worker grips, drags, lifts, or handles a rough or textured surface, abrasive forces start breaking down the outer layer of the glove. 

Over time, this friction causes:  

• Thinning of the coating  
• Loss of grip 
• Exposed knit fibers  
• Palm or fingertip wear-through  
• Micro-tears that weaken cut and puncture performance
• Decreased thermal or fluid resistance 

Because abrasion resistance is often the first failure point in a glove, strong abrasion resistance is critical for keeping the rest of the glove’s protective properties intact. 

Key benefits of high abrasion resistance when needed: 

• Longer glove life, reducing how often gloves need to be replaced 
• Maintains cut and puncture protection + thermal and/fluid resistance by keeping glove materials and coatings intact longer 
• Prevents sudden wear-through, reducing mid-shift glove changes 
• Improves performance when handling rough or high-friction materials 
• Boosts safety and compliance, since durable gloves maintain structure and grip 

Without adequate abrasion resistance, gloves can fail long before a shift ends, leaving workers unprotected even if they’re wearing gloves rated for cuts, punctures, or impacts. 

Beyond protection, abrasion resistance has a direct impact on how often gloves are replaced, how much PPE is consumed, and what it truly costs to keep workers protected. 

The types of abrasion hazards workers face 

Not all abrasions are the same. Different tasks create different wear patterns, and understanding these helps safety managers select the right abrasion level for any job. Let’s break down the different types: 

Sliding abrasion (most common):  

Caused by repeated rubbing or dragging of the glove against rough materials like concrete, steel, brick, rebar, or conveyor edges. This type of abrasion is slow, steady, and methodical, similar to the wear you see on the sole of a shoe from regular walking. 

• Most common across construction, material handling, and metalwork 
• Leads to slow, steady wear-through of the coating 
• Often the first sign of glove breakdown

Impact abrasion (scuffing): 

Occurs when the glove experiences a sudden, high-force contact at a sharp angle, causing the surface to scuff or scrape instantly. This is similar to the damage on a shoe sole from kicking or striking the ground, rather than normal walking.

• Happens quickly and with greater force than sliding abrasion 
• Can remove coating or damage fabric in a single motion 
• Often creates sudden wear spots rather than gradual thinning 

Seen in: 

• Manufacturing 
• Utilities 
• Maintenance and assembly work 

Impact abrasion tends to cause more sudden wear compared to steady sliding abrasion. 

Particle abrasion: 

Fine abrasive materials – like sand, concrete dust, metal shavings, or fiberglass – erode glove surfaces through repeated contact. 

Common in: 

• Mining 
• Masonry 
• Millwork 
• Demolition 

Particles act like sandpaper, thinning coatings, and exposing the knit. 

Wet abrasion (material breakdown): 

Wet abrasion occurs when moisture causes glove materials to soften, swell, or open their pores, making them more vulnerable to wear. While grip or friction may stay the same, or even improve, the material itself breaks down faster once it’s saturated. 

Think of it like dry cereal versus cereal soaked in milk. When dry, it holds its structure. Once wet, it falls apart with minimal effort. 

Seen in: 

• Outdoor work  
• Waste handling 
• Utilities 
• Oil & gas environments 

Wet abrasion often leads to earlier-than-expected coating failure even when workers don’t feel much friction. 

Each type of abrasion affects glove materials differently, which is why abrasion ratings matter just as much as cut or puncture levels. Without adequate abrasion resistance, coatings or knits can wear through long before a shift ends – leaving workers unprotected even if they’re wearing gloves rated for other hazards. 

ANSI/ISEA 105-2024 abrasion resistance standard – North America 

In the United States, abrasion resistance is classified under the ANSI/ISEA 105-2024 hand protection standard. Because coated and uncoated gloves wear down differently under friction, the standard references two abrasion test methods, each with its own defined failure point. ANSI/ISEA 105-2024 references: 

ASTM D3389-21 for coated gloves 

ASTM D3884-22 for uncoated gloves 

Keep in mind, the updated ANSI/ISEA 105-2024 standard also includes updated labeling requirements for labeling performance. For a full breakdown of the new symbol change that now looks like a pentagon, see our blog: What’s new in the ANSI/ISEA 105-2024 hand protection standard? 

The two abrasion tests used in ANSI/ISEA 105-2024 

ASTM D3389-21 – for coated work gloves (previously known as D3389-10) 

ANSI/ISEA 105-2024 specifies ASTM D3389-21 as the abrasion test method for coated glove materials such as knit/dip, disposable rubber and chemical glove. 

This method measures the number of abrasion cycles required to wear through the coating until: 

• the base fabric is exposed, or 
• the first break in the underlying fiber is observed

How the test works: 

• A coated glove sample is mounted on a rotating abrasion tester. 
• Abrasive wheels rub against the coating under a controlled load. 
• The test continues until the coating wears through enough to expose the knit or fabric underneath. 

This method standardizes important test factors, like pressure, wheel type, and speed, so coated materials can be compared consistently. The results provide a clear ranking of coating durability that often reflects how the glove will hold up in the field. 

ASTM D3884-22 – Abrasion test for uncoated gloves (previously known as D3884-9) 

ASTM D3884-22 is the current standard (2022 edition) used for uncoated textile materials, including leather gloves and knit glove shells without coatings.  

The abrasion process is the same as for coated gloves. The difference is the failure point: uncoated gloves are evaluated based on fabric breakdown, not coating loss. 

This method measures abrasion cycles until a hole is formed through the surface or knit.

How the test works:  

• An uncoated fabric sample is placed on a rotary platform abrader. 
• Abrasion is applied using standardized abrasive wheels made from a mix of hardened clay and silicon carbide. These wheels create a consistent, controlled grinding action against the fabric. 
• The test continues until the first yarn/thread breaks, marking the fabric’s failure point. 

How multi-layer materials are evaluated: 

For gloves made with multiple layers, abrasion performance is additive. Each layer contributes to the total durability of the glove. 

For example: 

• If a leather outer layer withstands 6,000 cycles, and 
• the liner beneath withstands 2,000 cycles, 
• the total abrasion performance of the palm is recorded as 8,000 cycles. 

This approach better reflects how layered gloves perform in real use, where each layer provides additional resistance before complete wear-through occurs. 

Because uncoated gloves don’t rely on a surface coating, this additive method provides a more accurate picture of durability for leather and lined glove constructions. 

ANSI/ISEA 105-2024 abrasion levels: 1–6 

Regardless of which test method applies (D3389-21 or D3884-22), abrasion results are classified into the same 1–6 scale: 

EN 388 Abrasion resistance standard – Europe  

Outside North America, abrasion resistance is classified under the EN 388 mechanical protection standard. EN 388 is widely used across Europe and internationally, and, like ANSI/ISEA 105-2024, it evaluates how well a glove material withstands wear before reaching failure. 

Under EN 388, abrasion resistance for both coated and uncoated gloves is measured using the Martindale Abrasion Test, a method designed specifically for textiles and coated fabrics used in PPE. 

The Martindale test uses a figure-eight rubbing motion to simulate the multi-directional friction workers experience when handling rough surfaces, tools, and materials. 

How the EN 388 Martindale abrasion test works 

Here’s how the test works: 

• A glove material sample is placed under a rotating abrasive head. 
• The head rubs the fabric in a figure-eight pattern using 180-grit sandpaper, depending on the glove type. 
• The test continues until two yarns break or the fabric shows visible wear. 

This creates a consistent way to compare how coated and uncoated materials hold up to multi-directional abrasion. 

EN 388 abrasion levels: 1–4 

It’s important to note:  

EN 388 abrasion levels are capped at 4 by design. Because the Martindale test was created as a textile-based method, its performance range naturally tops out once a material withstands around 8,000 cycles. Going higher would lead to unrealistic test times and reduced consistency. 

ANSI uses a more aggressive abrasion method intended for industrial coatings, which is why its scale extends to Level 6. The two systems weren’t built to match; they measure durability in different ways for different PPE needs. 

ANSI/ISEA vs. EN abrasion standards 

See the chart below for the differences in ANSI American standards vs EN European standards.

Common misconceptions about abrasion resistance 

1. “Abrasion resistance = cut resistance.” 

Not true. Abrasion measures surface wear; cut resistance measures how well a material stops a blade. A glove can be highly abrasion-resistant and still offer low-cut protection, and vice versa. 

2. “A higher abrasion level is always better.” 

Higher isn’t always necessary. A Level 6 glove may be overbuilt for light or intermittent contact and could reduce dexterity. The right level depends on how often and how aggressively workers encounter abrasive surfaces.

3. “Gloves are still protective once the coating starts to wear.” 

Once abrasion breaks through the coating, a glove’s cut, puncture, or fluid-resistance or thermal protection drops sharply. Even small worn spots can expose workers to unexpected injury. 

4. “EN and ANSI abrasion levels measure the same thing.” 

Both standards measure abrasion resistance; how well a glove material withstands wear from friction. The difference is how that abrasion is tested and reported. 

ANSI/ISEA 105 uses Taber-based methods with heavier loads and a wider performance scale (Levels 1–6), while EN 388 uses the Martindale method with a maximum rating of Level 4. Because the test methods and scales differ, the results can’t be directly compared or converted from one standard to the other. 

5. “Abrasion failure isn’t a big deal.” 

It’s actually one of the biggest predictors of glove injury. Abrasion is usually the first failure point, and when it fails, every other protective rating drops. 

6. "Lower upfront cost means better value" 

Not necessarily. While price matters, cost per use is what ultimately determines value, especially in abrasive environments. 

It’s also important to understand that two gloves can have the same abrasion rating but very different real-world durability. Abrasion tests measure performance under controlled conditions, but they don’t capture every factor that affects how a glove wears on the job. 

Higher-quality gloves often use: 

• More durable base materials 
• Higher-quality coatings 
• Better bonding between layers 
• More consistent construction 

As a result, a premium glove with the same abrasion score as a lower-cost option may still last longer in the field, reducing how often it needs to be replaced. 

For example: 

One glove that costs $10 and lasts a full shift versus three gloves that cost $4 each but fail early. 

The lower-priced glove may appear to be the better deal, but frequent replacement can drive up total spend and increase glove changes - not to mention increase risk of injury should the glove fail early. Learn more about the true cost of cheap PPE in our Truth in Safety series. 

Longer-lasting gloves also support sustainability goals. Using fewer gloves means less PPE waste and a smaller environmental footprint, without sacrificing protection. 

HexArmor® can help 

Abrasion resistance plays a critical role in overall glove performance, but it’s only one part of selecting the right hand protection for your team. If you need help evaluating abrasion hazards, comparing ANSI/ISEA and EN ratings, or choosing gloves that will hold up in your specific environment, our Solution Specialists are here to help. 

We’ll work with you to identify the right level of durability, trial products in your application, and make sure your workers are equipped with PPE that performs as hard as they do. 

Let us know if you need guidance or are ready to start a trial – our team is here to help. Call 1.877.MY ARMOR or send us a message.