Understanding EN 14605:2005+A1:2009 - Chemical Protective Clothing
By
Hollie Follett
·
2 minute read
When working in environments with a risk of chemical splashes, it’s vital to have confidence in your protective clothing. The European standard EN 14605:2005+A1:2009 helps assess how well garments perform in these situations. However, the technical language can make it hard to understand exactly what this means in practice. Here’s a simplified guide to help you make sense of it, without losing the important details.
What Does the Standard Cover?
This standard outlines strict testing methods to measure how well chemical protective clothing holds up when there’s a risk of chemical splashes. It looks at two main areas:
Material Integrity – How strong and resistant the fabric and seams are
Garment Integrity – How the entire suit or protective item performs as a whole
1. Material Integrity – How Strong is the Fabric?
The fabric and seams of the garment are put through a series of physical strength tests, and the results are given a performance rating. These ratings are shared with the wearer so they understand the garment's protective capabilities.
Chemical Resistance Testing:
The material and seams are also tested for chemical resistance using at least one chemical chosen by the manufacturer. This is called a permeation test and measures how much, if any, of the chemical passes through over 8 hours.
Note: If you need to know how the garment performs beyond 8 hours, additional tests are required – but these are not included in this standard.
2. Garment Integrity – How Well Does the Garment Protect You?
Garments are tested as a whole to make sure they protect against liquid entry. There are four main types of protection under this standard:
|
Type |
Description |
Test Method |
|
Type 3 |
Whole Suit – Liquid-Tight Protection |
Sprayed with a pressurised liquid jet targeting weak points like seams and zippers. An absorbent under-suit is worn to check for leaks. |
|
Type 4 |
Whole Suit – Spray-Tight Protection |
Sprayed with 4.5 litres of liquid from four nozzles over one minute while rotating. An absorbent under-suit checks for leaks. |
|
PB [3] |
Partial Body – Liquid-Tight Protection |
For garments like jackets or aprons that protect specific areas. |
|
PB [4] |
Partial Body – Spray-Tight Protection |
As above, but tested for spray-tight rather than full liquid-tight protection. |
Liquid-tight and spray-tight describe the level of protection at exposed connection points, like zippers, seams, or where gloves and boots attach.
Why Can Liquid-Tight Garments Still Fail?
Even garments that meet this standard aren’t foolproof. Here’s why:
1. Material Limitations
✔ The material is tested, but it’s not completely impermeable.
✔ Repeated exposure to chemicals or cleaning can weaken it over time.
2. Testing Limitations
✔ Tests happen in controlled lab settings – not real-world conditions.
✔ Things like movement, stretching, or extended wear aren’t simulated.
✔ Partial body garments (aprons, hoods, etc.) are only tested for material strength – they don’t guarantee full-body protection.
3. Seam and Connection Vulnerabilities
✔ Repeated use or cleaning can degrade seams and joins.
✔ Flexing, stretching, or abrasion during use can cause failures.
✔ Attachments to other PPE (e.g. respirators) aren't always tested together, potentially leaving weak points.
4. Standard Limitations
✔ There’s no testing for how the garment holds up after multiple uses or cleaning.
✔ Manufacturers only test the garments against the chemicals they choose - not every potential hazard in your workplace.
The Bottom Line
EN 14605:2005+A1:2009 provides reassurance that chemical protective garments have been tested under controlled conditions, especially at the seams and connection points. But real-world use brings its own challenges:
❗Materials can degrade
❗Movement can cause weaknesses
❗Not all chemicals are tested
Always check:
✔ Material-specific chemical resistance data
✔ Field tests under your real working conditions
✔ Compatibility with other PPE
Standards are essential - but real-world awareness is just as important.