0
Review ? 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. Policy & Risk Sign in to save

Artificial turf and crumb rubber infill: An international policy review concerning the current state of regulations

Environmental Challenges 2022 32 citations ? Citation count from OpenAlex, updated daily. May differ slightly from the publisher's own count. Score: 50 ? 0–100 AI score estimating relevance to the microplastics field. Papers below 30 are filtered from public browse.
Philip Zuccaro, Philip Zuccaro, David C. Thompson, Marı́a Llompart, Qiong Wang, Qiong Wang, David C. Thompson, J. de Boer, J. de Boer, J. de Boer, Marı́a Llompart, Marı́a Llompart, J. de Boer, Andrew Watterson, Qiong Wang, Nuno Ratola Marı́a Llompart, Qiong Wang, Marı́a Llompart, Xiaoming Shi, Nuno Ratola Qiong Wang, Andrew Watterson, Marı́a Llompart, Song Tang, J. de Boer, J. de Boer, J. de Boer, Nuno Ratola Xiaoming Shi, J. de Boer, Vasilis Vasiliou, Marı́a Llompart, J. de Boer, Nuno Ratola Vasilis Vasiliou, Nuno Ratola

Summary

This review compared artificial turf and crumb rubber infill regulations across seven jurisdictions, finding significant variation in regulatory approaches and insufficient research on the human and environmental health risks of these materials.

BACKGROUND: Although artificial turf fields are utilized widely around the world, sufficient research has not yet been conducted to assess the potential human and environmental health risks posed by the chemicals contained in the fields' fibers, backing, and often-used crumb rubber infill. Consequently, there is wide variation in governmental policies. OBJECTIVE: Review the notable policies concerning artificial turf and crumb rubber infill in the European Union, United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada, China, Qatar, and the Global Stockholm Convention of the United Nations. METHODS: Information was collected that included published papers, technical and policy reports, and grey literature. These were then analyzed by a collaborative group familiar with the environmental policies in their respective countries to extract the pertinent legislative or regulatory information. The group members were primarily identified through their involvement in publications pertinent to artificial turf and crumb rubber infill health research and included environmental health professors, active researchers, and governmental agency officials. Most information on direct policies was taken directly from reports provided to the public by various governmental agencies responsible for their countries' regulations, often available within the respective agency's online archives. RESULTS: There are significant differences in the regulatory approaches adopted by the investigated countries with regards to artificial turf and its crumb rubber infill. Some regions, such as the European Union, have taken substantial steps to limit the fields' chemical components to which the public and environment are exposed. Other regions and countries have done far less to address the issue. Most policies relate directly to (i) the fields themselves, (ii) the microplastic components of crumb rubber infill, or (iii) the concentrations of harmful polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and heavy metals. CONCLUSION: While nearly every country acknowledges the potential health risks posed by heavy metals, microplastics, PAHs, and PFAS chemicals, very few have actually implemented artificial turf and crumb rubber infill regulations and/or established adequate surveillance measures to protect those regularly exposed to the fields.

Sign in to start a discussion.

Share this paper