0
Article ? AI-assigned paper type based on the abstract. Classification may not be perfect — flag errors using the feedback button. Tier 2 ? Original research — experimental, observational, or case-control study. Direct primary evidence. Environmental Sources Human Health Effects Marine & Wildlife Remediation Sign in to save

Quantifying the Sustainability of Football (Soccer) Pitches: A Comparison of Artificial and Natural Turf Pitches with a Focus on Microplastics and Their Environmental Impacts

Sustainability 2024 7 citations ? Citation count from OpenAlex, updated daily. May differ slightly from the publisher's own count. Score: 45 ? 0–100 AI score estimating relevance to the microplastics field. Papers below 30 are filtered from public browse.
Lukas Zeilerbauer, Johannes Lindorfer, Pauline Fuchs, Melanie Knöbl, Asle Ravnås, Trygve Maldal, Eimund Gilje, Christian Paulik, Joerg Fischer

Summary

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.

Recently, the European Commission announced their intention to restrict intentionally added microplastics to reduce the amount emitted by 0.5 million tons per year. Findings on microplastics indicate toxic behavior for biota, yet many mechanisms remain in the dark. Microplastics also pose a challenge in life cycle assessment as methods are actively being developed. Considering this recent decision, an anticipatory life cycle assessment was performed, comparing the impacts of natural grass pitches with artificial grass pitches using bio-based infill materials as well as polymeric ones made from recycled and virgin materials. The aim was to confirm if microplastics are in fact a considerable environmental hazard when compared to more traditional impacts. The microplastics’ impact was modeled after the MarILCA group’s work on the new midpoint of physical effects on biota. The results showed that the influence of the microplastics remains negligible when using the method provided. For most midpoint categories, the wood-based infill showed the best results, often closely tied with the infill made from recycled rubber from tires. A sensitivity analysis revealed that neither the physical effects on biota nor the greenhouse gas emissions from degradation in a marine environment are deciding factors when assessing the endpoint of ecosystem damage.

Sign in to start a discussion.

More Papers Like This

Article Tier 2

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.

Article Tier 2

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.

Article Tier 2

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.

Article Tier 2

A microplastic used as infill material in artificial sport turfs reduces plant growth

Researchers found that rubber crumb microplastics used as infill in artificial sport turfs reduced plant growth, highlighting that plastic pollution in terrestrial ecosystems may pose risks to vegetation that are currently poorly understood.

Article Tier 2

Artificial Turf Versus Natural Grass: A Case Study of Environmental Effects, Health Risks, Safety, and Cost

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.

Share this paper