What AQL means on a box of gloves – and what it does not
"AQL 1.5" is the most misunderstood number in the trade. It does not mean 1.5 % of gloves leak, and on a non-medical box it may mean nothing at all.
"AQL 1.5" is printed on more glove boxes than any other quality claim, and it is the most misunderstood number in the trade. It does not mean 1.5 % of the gloves leak. It does not mean the gloves are good. And on a non-medical box it may mean nothing at all, because a manufacturer can print it after running an easier test.
This article explains what the number actually represents, the sampling plan the medical standards specify, and how to tell a real AQL claim from a decorative one.
What AQL is
AQL stands for acceptance quality limit. It is not a property of a glove. It is a property of an inspection scheme: the worst average defect rate that a sampling plan will still accept.
So a lot is sampled, the sample is inspected, and the number of non-conforming gloves is compared against an accept/reject figure from a table. Pass, and the whole lot ships. Fail, and the whole lot is rejected. The tables come from ISO 2859-1, Sampling procedures for inspection by attributes – Part 1: Sampling schemes indexed by acceptance quality limit (AQL) for lot-by-lot inspection.
Two things follow that catch buyers out:
Every competent factory runs AQL testing on each batch. Because a factory's own result is a factory's own result, importers commission a final random inspection from a third party – we use SGS and TÜV – before shipment.
The plan the medical standards actually specify
This is where most explanations of AQL, including our own earlier version of this article, go wrong. They illustrate AQL with a generic ISO 2859-1 example at general inspection level II, which is not what the medical glove standards require.
EN 455-1:2020+A2:2024 specifies general inspection level I, with minimum sample size and accept/reject numbers equivalent to sample size code letter L. That means a sample of 200 gloves, not 500. At AQL 1.5 and a sample of 200, the accept number is 7 and the reject number is 8.
The AQLs themselves:
Note the third row. ASTM D6319 accepts a looser limit than EN 455-1. A supplier answering a European tender with an ASTM report has answered a different question, and this is one of the most common documentation gaps we see.
Chemical protection gloves use a different scheme again. EN ISO 374-2:2019 sets performance levels in an informative annex:
That annex explicitly allows purchaser and seller to agree a stricter level than the table – so an institutional buyer can specify Level 3 and remain inside the standard's own framework.
How the numbers work
A worked example at general inspection level II, which is what most online AQL calculators default to. For a lot of 600,000 gloves the tables give a sample of 500:
Any calculator built on ISO 2859-1 will reproduce these. But check the inspection level before quoting a figure – the same AQL at level I gives a smaller sample and a lower accept number, and level I is what EN 455-1 requires.
Some surgical glove manufacturers work to AQL 0.10 as an internal specification, well beyond the 0.65 the standard demands. At a sample of 500 that permits a single non-conforming glove.
Major and minor defects are counted separately
"Defect" is not one category, and a supplier quoting a single AQL figure may be quoting the easier one.
Sempermed-style surgical inspection illustrates the pattern – separate AQLs for visual major and minor defects alongside the 0.65 water-leak figure. When comparing tenders, ask which defect class each AQL refers to.
The claim to check: which test produced the number
Here is the practical fraud, and it is common.
The medical standards require the water leak test. A glove is filled with a measured volume of water and inspected for droplets. It finds pinholes, including very small ones.
The air leak test inflates the glove and looks for bubbles. It is easier to pass, because it does not reveal the smallest pinholes. It is a legitimate method under EN ISO 374-2 for chemical gloves – that standard defines both and notes the air method is unsuitable for some glove geometries – but it is not the method the medical standards specify for freedom from holes.
So a manufacturer whose gloves cannot pass AQL 1.5 on the water leak test can run the air leak test instead and print "AQL 1.5" on a non-medical box. The number is real; the test behind it is not the one a clinical buyer assumes.
How to tell: look for EN 455, ASTM D6319, and the words exam or examination on the box alongside the AQL. Without those, an AQL figure on a glove box is decoration. And in a tender, ask which test method produced it – water leak or air leak. A supplier who cannot answer immediately is telling you something.
What to require in a tender
Every batch in our product range is managed to AQL 1.5 with independent pre-shipment inspection by SGS or TÜV, and the water leak report travels with the delivery rather than staying in a file at the factory.
Key takeaways
Frequently asked questions
Does AQL 1.5 mean 1.5 % of the gloves have holes? No. It is the acceptance threshold of a sampling plan – the worst process average the plan will still accept. Actual defect rates in a compliant batch are normally far lower.
Is a lower AQL always better? Tighter, yes; better value, not necessarily. Below the standard's requirement you are paying for inspection stringency rather than a materially different glove. AQL 1.5 with a documented water leak test beats AQL 0.65 with an unstated method.
Can I use AQL 2.5 or 4.0 gloves? For non-clinical work – food preparation, cleaning, light mechanical tasks – yes, and they cost less. We recommend AQL 1.5 across the board, because a single item code that satisfies clinical, laboratory and catering use is simpler to manage than three.
Why does the same glove show different AQLs on different documents? Usually because the figures refer to different defect classes, or to different inspection levels. Both are legitimate; quoting one without saying which is not.
Seventeen years sourcing and supplying medical gloves and PPE to governments, UN agencies, NGOs and healthcare systems. Writes on glove standards, quality management and responsible sourcing for institutional buyers, working from the source standards rather than secondary summaries.
View profile on LinkedIn
