A simple guide to EN ISO 20345:2022

Perforation resistance: Under the old standard, all safety shoes or boots that offered protection against nail penetration had the marking ‘P’. Under the new standard, ‘P’ is used for metallic soles that have been tested with a 4.5 mm nail. Shoes with non-metallic soles are marked with either ‘PL’ if tested with a 4.5 mm nail or ‘PS’ if tested with a 3 mm nail. As smaller diameter nails give a higher pressure, ‘PS’ offers a higher level of protection.

Ladder grip: The outsole of all safety footwear must have a transverse profile with a height of at least 1.5 mm in the ankle area to provide adequate grip on ladders. Previously, this was included in the standard for footwear intended for firefighters. Now, this has been copied for a standalone additional test for all safety shoes or boots and is signalled with an ‘LG’ marking.

Fuel oil resistance: The previous standard mandated that all safety footwear other than those with an open heel (SB) offered resistance to fuel oil. The new standard includes resistance to hydrocarbons – indicated by an ‘FO’ marking – as an additional test for environments in which hazards such as oil and petrol are present.

Scuff cap: An ‘SC’ marking can be used if an overcap does not develop any holes across its entire thickness when subjected to a Martindale abrasion test of 8,000 cycles.

Water resistance: The EN ISO 20345:2011 standard featured ‘WRU’ markings for shoes/boots with ‘water-resistant uppers’. However, this did not indicate that the footwear was waterproof as the test requirement is, that no more than 3cm2 of water penetration is allowed. This is because only the upper itself was tested to obtain WRU certification; when the upper is included in a shoe, the shoe as a whole can lose its water-repellent ability because water penetrates into the seams

Under the new 2022 standard, WRU has been replaced by WPA. ‘WPA’ now indicates that footwear can allow for some ‘water penetration and absorption’. WPA footwear offers some breathability and can be used in working conditions that do not require the feet to be submerged in water.

Also, under the new 2022 standard the ‘WR’ (water resistant) marking is the same test for water penetration that is used during the 2011 test, but it is the result that differs. In order to be marked as ‘WR’ the 2022 standard states no water penetration inside the footwear shall be detected where, as above, the 2011 test allows for 3cm cubed of water to penetrate the footwear and therefore, the new WR standard is more stringent. To help equate one standard to another, a previous S2 model with WR has now become an S6, and a previous S3 model with WR has become an S7.

Often a membrane is used to achieve this however, footwear without a membrane could pass the water resistance testing but the seams would need to be very watertight. The test itself is referred to as “water resistance” and not waterproof, a term often used by wearers. The term “waterproof” would insinuate that the footwear would never allow water to enter, which over time cannot be guaranteed by any manufacturer due to use, wear and tear, also via the tongue and seams of the footwear, depending on depth of water submersion.

Why was the new standard introduced?

There is no question EN ISO 20345:2022 will make procurement more challenging in the short-term. Nonetheless, the red tape serves a purpose. UK and EU standards are exceptionally high to ensure workers have access to the safety equipment they need to keep injuries and fatalities to a minimum.

In addition to ensuring basic slip resistance in every safety shoe/boot, the new ladder grip certification will be vitally important for many workers. Falls from height are among the most common cause of injuries and fatalities. The new ‘LG’ markings provide workers with reassurance that their footwear has passed specific tests to ensure the outsoles provide hold on ladders.

The new perforation resistance codes also explicitly state whether soles are metallic or non-metallic, which provides buyers with greater clarity on product selection.

There are now distinctions in the standards between metallic or non-metallic toecaps as well. For example, the flange width for metallic toecaps must be below 12 mm and for non-metallic toecaps it must be 15 mm. These distinctions will mean if a buyer purchases the same product from multiple factories, they no longer risk receiving some with metallic toecaps and some with composite toecaps.