0
Article Tier 2 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

AI summary Read the abstract

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.

More Papers Like This

Article

Microplastic emissions and degradation mechanisms, in artificial turf systems – analytical detection and future directions

AI summary Read the abstract

This study examines how artificial turf systems emit microplastics into the environment through wear, weathering, and runoff, identifying key degradation mechanisms and detection gaps. Artificial turf is a significant but underappreciated point source of synthetic rubber and polymer microplastics entering urban waterways and soils.

Article Tier 2

Fate of recycled tyre granulate used on artificial turf

AI summary Read the abstract

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

Material flow analysis for Norway’s artificial turfs

AI summary Read the abstract

Researchers analyzed the full life cycle of synthetic football field materials in Norway, finding that artificial turfs are the second largest source of microplastic pollution in the country after tire wear. New turf fields contain roughly 100 tonnes of rubber granules, losing 3.5-6.5 tonnes per year to the environment.

Article Tier 2

Environmental impacts of artificial turf: a scoping review

AI summary Read the abstract

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

Jämförelse av alternativa fyllnadsmaterial till konstgräsplaner

AI summary Read the abstract

This study evaluated and compared multiple alternative infill materials for artificial football pitches to address the environmental impact of rubber infill, which has been identified as Sweden's second largest source of microplastic emissions. Analysis including GC-MS and XRF testing found that at least three alternatives (Envirofill, Safeshell, and Geofill) were more environmentally friendly, equal in play performance, and comparable in cost to EPDM rubber infill.

Research digests by email

When a large batch of papers lands in the Atlas, we read through it and send a short write-up of what stood out.

Email me about

Share this paper