ARTIFICIAL TURF

A threat to our watershed.

Our stance on artificial turf.

CRWA opposes the installation of artificial turf as contrary to our core mission of promoting the health of the Charles River and its watershed. Given the increasing prevalence of synthetic turf usage in watershed communities, CRWA wishes to articulate its position on artificial turf and provide resources for those interested in learning more.  

ARTIFICIAL TURF AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Modern artificial turf generally consists of a base layer of asphalt, concrete, or gravel, a shock absorbent pad, and grass-like pile fibers composed of polyethylene or polypropylene.¹ Infill is placed between these fibers, often made of tire crumb rubber or a similar textured organic material such as wood particles.² From an environmental perspective, the crumb rubber infill and artificial turf fibers are of particular concern because of their potential to migrate into the aquatic environment.

Artificial turf is known to contain potentially harmful compounds.³ Existing studies demonstrate that the use of artificial turf substantially contributes to the release of microplastics, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), and organic contaminants into nearby waterbodies.⁴ These pollutants are perilous to the natural aquatic environment, can bioaccumulate, and severely threaten the health of fish.⁵

CRWA recognizes the heavy demand for recreational facilities and the desirability of a low-maintenance, affordable natural turf alternative. However, available scientific studies indicate that artificial turf may not be cost-effective in the long term and that it may have significant deleterious human health effects.⁶ Crucially, artificial turf does not provide the same environmental benefits as grass athletic fields. Unlike natural grass fields, artificial turf constitutes an impervious surface, generating additional stormwater runoff which contributes to flooding and aquatic contamination.⁷ Studies show that artificial turf also exacerbates heat island effects.⁸ Artificial turf provides none of the air or water quality benefits of natural turf, nor does it provide potential habitat or ecosystem benefits. 

What we are doing about it:

Given the impacts of artificial turf installation, CRWA recommends that it not be used as part of municipal or private projects. Federal and state law has yet to fully regulate the use of artificial turf, and litigation over its ill effects has been inconclusive and sparse, though there are municipal and state efforts to limit its use in Massachusetts. As of March 2024, three bills before the Massachusetts state legislature relate to artificial turf (S.2057, H.3948, S.524). Boston has pledged not to use artificial turf on municipal properties, and state Community Preservation Act program funds may not be used for artificial turf. As the conversation around artificial turf usage advances, CRWA strongly advocates for legislation and policy that reduces artificial turf’s ability to negatively impact the Commonwealth and its waters.

RESOURCES

Athletic Playing Fields - Toxics Use Reduction Insitute 
Athletic Playing Fields – Lowell Center for Sustainable Production

Northeastern University: PFAS Project Lab

Studies/Reports

de Haan, W. P. et al. The dark side of artificial greening: Plastic turfs as widespread pollutants of aquatic environments. Environ. Pollut.334, 122094 (2023)Gomes, F. O., Rocha, M. R., Alves, A. & Ratola, N. A review of potentially harmful chemicals in crumb rubber used in synthetic football pitches. J. Hazard. Mater. 409, 124998 (2021)

  • Naim, Ayman, An Investigation into PFAS in Artificial Turf Around Stockholm (Sweden), University of Stockholm; Zuccaro et al., Artificial turf and crumb rubber infill: An international policy review concerning the current state of regulations, Environmental Challenges (Sept. 2022).

  • Pochron et al., The response of earthworms (Eisenia fetida) and soil microbes to the crumb rubber material used in artificial turf fields, 173 Chemosphere 557-562 (Apr. 2017)

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Research on Recycled Tire Crumb Used on Playing Fields, https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/federal-research-recycled-tire-crumb-used-playing-fields.  

  • Perkins et al., Evaluation of potential carcinogenicity of organic chemicals in synthetic turf crumb rubber, 169 Environmental Research 163-172 (Feb. 2019).

  • Toxics Use Reduction Institute, Per- and Poly-fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Artificial Turf Carpet (Feb. 2020) https://www.turi.org/var/plain_site/storage/original/application/2af7f525abb175811f54b1dfb8ccc5c8.pdf 

  • Li, Ran, Tracking Microplastics From Artificial Football Fields to Stormwater Systems, Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm University (2019).

Articles

Harry Sawyers and Gregory Han, Why We Don’t Recommend Artificial Grass for Most People, The New York Times - Wirecutter (July 9, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-artificial-grass/#environmental-and-health-impacts-of-synthetic-turf.

¹ Jastifer, James et al., Synthetic Turf: History, Design, Maintenance, and Athlete Safety, 11 Sports Health, p 84-90 (Jan 2019). https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1941738118793378. 
² Murphy, Maire and Warner, Genoa R., Health impacts of artificial turf: Toxicity studies, challenges, and future directions, 310 Environmental Pollution 119841, p 2-3 (Oct. 2022).
³ Gomes, F. O., Rocha, M. R., Alves, A. & Ratola, N. A review of potentially harmful chemicals in crumb rubber used in synthetic football pitches. J. Hazard. Mater. 409, 124998 (2021). Analysis by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility found that “PFOS is found in roughly three-quarters of all artificial turf tested.” Test results for preliminary study PFOS on hands of soccer players and coaches on artificial turf vs grass, PEER (2024). https://peer.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/3_6_2024-Dermal-absorption-PFAS-AT.pdf. 
⁴ Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Final Report - Artificial Turf Study - Leachate and Stormwater Characteristics (July 2010); Galkina, Elena, Possible Impact of Additives in Artificial Turf on Aquatic Life in the San Francisco Estuary, 1509, p 20-21, Master’s Projects and Capstones, University of San Francisco (May 2023); see also Murphy and Warner supra note 1.
⁵ Tian, Zhenyu et al., A ubiquitous tire rubber-derived chemical induces acute mortality in coho salmon, 371 Science 6525, 185-89 (2020); see also Stokstad, Erik, Common tire chemical implicated in mysterious deaths of at-risk salmon, Science (Dec. 3, 2020), https://www.science.org/content/article/common-tire-chemical-implicated-mysterious-deaths-risk-salmon; de Haan, W. P. et al. The dark side of artificial greening: Plastic turfs as widespread pollutants of aquatic environments,  Environ. Pollut. 334, 122094 (2023)
⁶ Swiss Chemicals Agency (Keml, 2006) (recommended banning the use of recycled tires for new artificial turf fields despite low risk level); Marsili et al., (2014) (public use of artificial turf fields is unsafe due to the wide variety of harmful chemicals emitted when the infill material is heated).
⁷ Thomas J. Simpson, Robert A. Francis, Artificial lawns exhibit increased runoff and decreased water retention compared to living lawns following controlled rainfall experiments, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Volume 63,
2021,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127232.
⁸ Myrick, Sonia, Synthetic Sports Fields and the Heat Island Effect, National Recreation and Park Association, Parks and Recreation, (May 8, 2019), https://www.nrpa.org/parks-recreation-magazine/2019/may/synthetic-sports-fields-and-the-heat-island-effect/