We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Artificial Turf Versus Natural Grass: A Case Study of Environmental Effects, Health Risks, Safety, and Cost
Summary
Researchers compared the environmental effects, health risks, safety, and costs of artificial turf versus natural grass playing fields in a New Jersey township. They found that artificial turf raises environmental and health concerns, including microplastic shedding and chemical exposure, while natural grass provides ecological benefits. The study suggests that restoring aging turf fields to natural grass may be a more sustainable long-term choice.
While natural grass has been a reliable recreational surface for decades, artificial turf has gained popularity due to its durability, supposed ability to save water, and lower associated costs for municipalities and schools. Growing environmental and health concerns associated with artificial turf have prompted a necessary comparison of the environmental impact, chemical exposure, injury rates, surface heat, and costs of turf with natural grass. The township of Verona, New Jersey, engaged the PSEG Institute for Sustainability Studies’ Green Teams Program interns to perform an environmental impact assessment, literature review, and cost–benefit analysis to determine if the township should restore an aging artificial turf field in the town to natural grass. The environmental impact assessment revealed concerns regarding artificial turf’s high emission profile, microplastic pollution, lack of permeability, and the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Natural grass’ high water usage was also identified as a drawback. The literature review revealed safety concerns of artificial turf regarding temperature disparities and no conclusive results regarding differences in overall injury rates. The artificial turf field in this case study was 182% hotter than the natural grass field when measured by an infrared thermometer during mid-day readings in June. The cost–benefit analysis revealed that natural grass offers a lower long-term expense over a 25-year period. Artificial turf has many benefits; however, natural grass was the recommended option when considering environmental sustainability, reduced chemical exposure, lower surface temperatures, and overall cost. The conclusions may further inform policy decisions and support the adoption of environmentally responsible and health-centered practices for sports fields across municipalities in New Jersey and beyond.
Sign in to start a discussion.
More Papers Like This
Quantifying the Sustainability of Football (Soccer) Pitches: A Comparison of Artificial and Natural Turf Pitches with a Focus on Microplastics and Their Environmental Impacts
A comparative life cycle assessment of artificial turf and natural grass football pitches found that artificial turf generates substantial microplastic emissions, particularly from rubber crumb infill, with total environmental impacts differing by metric.
Environmental impacts of artificial turf: a scoping review
This scoping review examines the environmental impacts of artificial turf, documenting concerns around microplastic pollution from synthetic grass fibers and infill materials, chemical leaching, and end-of-life waste disposal.
Mechanisms of Generation and Ecological Impacts of Nano- and Microplastics from Artificial Turf Systems in Sports Facilities
This review examines how artificial turf in sports facilities generates nano- and microplastics through mechanical wear, UV radiation, and weathering of synthetic grass fibers and infill materials. These plastic particles have been detected in drainage systems and surrounding soils near sports facilities, with laboratory studies showing harmful effects on soil organisms and aquatic life. The findings highlight artificial turf as an overlooked but significant source of microplastic pollution in urban environments.
The dark side of artificial greening: Plastic turfs as widespread pollutants of aquatic environments.
This study found that artificial turf fibers made of polyethylene and polypropylene are widely present in river and ocean waters, having been transported there by stormwater runoff from sports fields, gardens, and rooftops. The findings reveal artificial turf as an underappreciated and widespread source of microplastic fiber pollution in aquatic environments.
Fate of recycled tyre granulate used on artificial turf
Researchers reviewed the environmental fate of recycled tyre rubber granulate used as infill on artificial turf fields, finding that while the material provides significant CO2 savings compared to alternatives, dispersal of approximately 3,000-5,000 kg per field per year to surrounding environments raises microplastic pollution concerns.