"(ASTM F2412-18A tests)..evaluate the performance of footwear for the following:

Impact resistance for the toe area of footwear (I);

Compression resistance for the toe area of footwear (C);

Metatarsal protection that reduces the chance of injury to the metatarsal bones at the top of the foot (Mt);

Conductive properties which reduce hazards that may result from static electricity buildup, and reduce the possibility of ignition of explosives and volatile chemicals (Cd);

Electric hazard to protect the wearer when accidentally stepping on live wires (EH);

Static dissipative properties to reduce hazards that result in a build up of static charge where there is an underlying risk of accidental contact with live electrical circuits (SD);

Puncture resistance footwear devices (PR).

Static dissipative implies a partial conductor of order  Megohms

That HSE bulletin in full

Well indeed. I suppose in this letters and numbers obsessed world you might buy a pair and expect the numbers to mean they will be for example waterproof and find they are not, and that is not one of the tests. Or you could just look into it properly before you buy.

Mike.

That HSE bulletin in full

"The Standard does not include tests for use in wet or damp environments and therefore the footwear should not also be marked to offer claims of waterproof, Water resistant, water resistant upper, or other similar claims. "

I don't quite follow the logic - normally standards set minimum standards and manufacturers can exceed those in any way they care (e.g. to give a market advantage) - is there any reason why a manufacturer couldn't add additional waterproofing abilities and be able to market them as such? Rather like outdoor 13A sockets - would the HSE say that manufacturers mustn't say their weatherproof since the normal BS 1363 requirements for IP ratings aren't sufficient for outdoor use?

   - Andy.

That HSE bulletin in full

"The Standard does not include tests for use in wet or damp environments and therefore the footwear should not also be marked to offer claims of waterproof, Water resistant, water resistant upper, or other similar claims. "

I don't quite follow the logic - normally standards set minimum standards and manufacturers can exceed those in any way they care (e.g. to give a market advantage) - is there any reason why a manufacturer couldn't add additional waterproofing abilities and be able to market them as such? Rather like outdoor 13A sockets - would the HSE say that manufacturers mustn't say their weatherproof since the normal BS 1363 requirements for IP ratings aren't sufficient for outdoor use?

   - Andy.