EN 388 X vs 0 is a small distinction with an important purchasing consequence. An X in a glove’s performance code and a zero do not communicate the same information. When a distributor copies both into a spreadsheet as “no protection,” or treats a missing result as a low passing score, the comparison can mislead the customer. Buyers need to preserve the original marking, identify the property concerned, and resolve the evidence gap before approving a glove for the task.
This guide focuses on reading and handling those two characters in procurement records. It does not assign an EN 388 rating to any Rilong product. Use the exact model’s current marking, user instructions, and supporting documents when making a product decision.
What X and 0 mean in the marking
In its explanation of EN 388:2016+A1:2018, SATRA states that X replaces an achieved level when either cut test has not been performed. It also explains the convention of using 0 for the first four tests when Level 1 is not attained. A zero therefore records a result below that test’s first performance level; it is not a low passing level.
Spain’s national occupational safety institute, INSST, explains that an X in place of a performance level identifies an untested requirement, so protection against that risk is unknown. Ask the manufacturer to explain the reason for the X in the specific model’s documentation. Do not fill the position using a similar glove’s result.
Keep the position with the character
The code is a sequence of properties, not one overall score. The first four positions concern abrasion, circular-blade cut, tear, and puncture; the next character concerns straight-blade cut performance. An optional P relates to the impact test. Record the full string before discussing one character. “It has an X” is insufficient to identify which evidence is absent.
For a purchasing worksheet, give each property its own field and retain a photograph or exact transcription of the complete marking. Keep blank, illegible, X, and 0 as separate entries. These states call for different follow-up questions and should remain distinguishable when the record is exported to a catalog or customer quotation.
Why a cut-test X needs context
A circular-blade result and a straight-blade result come from different methods. ATG’s EN 388 explanation describes the straight-blade method as the reference when the material blunts the circular blade. Consequently, a cut-test X should prompt a check of the other cut position and the manufacturer’s explanation, rather than an automatic decision that the glove has no cut-related evidence.
Ask the supplier which test was performed, how its result is reported, and whether the code on the supplied glove matches the supporting document. Avoid translating a numeric circular-blade level into an alphabetical straight-blade level. SATRA explicitly notes that the levels from the two methods do not correlate. A buyer should compare the same method when checking a stated requirement.
For example, if a customer asks for documented straight-blade performance, a sales description containing only “cut level” leaves the requirement unresolved. Write the method and requested evidence into the RFQ, then have the responsible safety or technical reviewer assess the offered result. The purchasing team can organize the evidence without deciding the worksite’s protection requirement on its own.
Do not turn an evidence gap into a catalog claim
A spreadsheet often needs a value in every column. That convenience can create a problem when X is converted to zero, a blank becomes “passed,” or a family-level statement is copied across several SKUs. Preserve the supplier’s original values and add a separate explanation field. If a property has not been established for the offered model, keep the question open in the internal review.
The same discipline applies to product photographs. A textured palm, thick liner, printed shield, or similar-looking model cannot supply a missing result. Use photos to identify the glove and check label consistency. Rilong’s test-report verification guide provides a broader document review workflow for buyers who need to connect a report to an actual product.
Build a model-specific evidence record
Before comparing offers, request one document set for the exact configuration being quoted. Identify the model, revision, liner, coating, coverage, size range, and intended market. Save the dated specification, label proof, user information, and relevant report references together. If a document uses a different model code, ask the supplier to explain the relationship in writing.
For each required property, record the reported value, test method or standard reference, document identifier, and review status. Add a field for unresolved questions. This makes it possible to distinguish “document received” from “document reviewed and matched to the offered model.” A file attached to an email is not itself evidence that the correct SKU has been checked.
If two supplier documents disagree, pause approval of the disputed claim. Ask which version applies to production and obtain a corrected, consistent set. Do not silently select the stronger value for the website. Keep the superseded file in the internal history so the reason for the revision remains visible.
A practical RFQ checklist for X or 0
- Original marking: provide the complete EN 388 code and a clear image of the proposed label.
- Exact identity: confirm the quoted model, revision, construction, and correspondence with report identifiers.
- Explanation: identify the property represented by X or 0 and explain the relevant document entry.
- Task requirement: list the properties and evidence the buyer’s technical reviewer requires for the application.
- Cut method: state which method supports any cut-performance description in the quotation.
- Tính nhất quán: align the glove marking, packaging, specification, report references, and user information.
- Changes: explain how any model, material, or marking revision will be communicated before shipment.
Ask for clarification before accepting label artwork or customer-facing copy. Put the final agreed wording into the approval record. That record should be accessible to purchasing, quality staff, and the person maintaining the distributor’s product database.
Apply the record to samples and bulk deliveries
When samples arrive, compare their model and markings with the approved documents. Photograph the palm, back, cuff label, and packaging. Keep the sample reference tied to the specification revision. Rilong’s golden-sample control guide explains how to retain that reference for later orders.
At bulk receipt, check identity and marking under the agreed inspection procedure. If the code differs from the approved version, hold the affected stock for review and ask the supplier to reconcile the difference. A change from X to a number, or from one number to another, needs documentation rather than a verbal assurance that the product is equivalent.
Keep performance approval and ordinary appearance inspection connected but distinct. A visual receiving check can reveal a wrong label or changed construction; it cannot recreate a laboratory result. The earlier coated-glove inspection guide helps describe visible discrepancies without assigning test levels.
Kết luận
Read X and 0 in their exact positions and preserve them accurately through the purchasing process. Obtain the explanation and supporting documents for the offered model, compare the specified method, and resolve inconsistent markings before approval. This produces a more useful buying decision than reducing a multi-property code to one broad protection claim.
To discuss a Rilong glove, send the model, application, destination market, and required performance evidence. Request the current specification and model-specific documentation before finalizing your selection or publishing a protection claim.
