Artificial grass has become increasingly popular in recent years due to its low maintenance appeal for gardens and its offer of a durable playing surface that can be used all year round for sports fields. However, the grass isn’t greener on the artificial side, especially when it’s plastic and full of harmful chemicals.
Recent research has shown that PFAS lurks in the plastic blades of grass used in artificial turf sports pitches[1], [2], [3]. PFAS are a group of over 10,000 industrial chemicals[4] now widely known for their negative health and environmental impacts. Some of these so called ‘forever chemicals’ have been connected with significant health concerns including cancer[5], immunotoxicity[6] and fertility issues[7]. PFAS are incredibly persistent and mobile, and can now be found to contaminate, air[8], soil[9], and water[10] across the globe.
As a result, many countries are taking action on PFAS, the most significant being the EU’s plan to introduce a universal PFAS restriction[11], [12]. Whilst the UK has made some progress with a potential restriction on PFAS in firefighting foams, we are otherwise lagging woefully behind our more proactive neighbours[13].
PFAS are added to artificial turf during the manufacturing process where their purpose is thought to help shape the blades of grass and ensure the molten plastic doesn’t clog in machinery[14], [15]. They may also be added to plastic grass strands for UV protection and to prevent them from breaking. However, as is the case with many chemicals, these PFAS don’t always remain confined to the products they were designed for and often end up in the environment.
Environmental contamination of PFAS from artificial turf
PFAS can leach from artificial turf into local water supplies. This PFAS pollution from artificial turf can reach above regulated limits set by some states in the U.S. For example, in Rhode Island, where the local groundwater PFAS limit is set at 20 ng/L, contamination from an artificial turf field resulted in PFAS levels in water three times higher than this at 60 ng/L[16].
As a result of this environmental contamination, the use of PFAS in artificial turf is expected to lead to increasing legal liabilities, a trend already emerging across the U.S. Some states have already banned the use of artificial turf containing PFAS, including Colorado and some municipalities (in Massachusetts[17], California and Connecticut [18] [19]).
Similarly, high amounts of PFAS have been found in artificial turf samples in Europe. PFAS has been found in 76% of backing samples of artificial turf from 103 football fields in Stockholm [2] (the backing is the layer which holds the turf together). Despite artificial pitches being widespread across the UK, no scientific studies have yet investigated their potential for PFAS contamination.
Is PFAS from artificial turf affecting human health?
The evidence on whether PFAS from artificial turf is harming human health is unclear. However, some findings raise concerns. For example, studies in the U.S. have shown that children who play on artificial turf fields have higher levels of PFOS on their hands after playing [3]. PFOS is one of the most harmful PFAS known and has been restricted in many countries[20]. One child even had 2.4 nanograms per wipe of PFOS on their hands—while that may not sound like much, it’s worth noting that the U.S. recently set the legal limit for PFOS in drinking water at 4 ng/L[21].
In Europe, this issue is gaining traction too. The Netherlands professional football league (Eredivisie) is banning artificial grass pitches all together. From 2025, only natural grass will be used[22]. Although, PFAS isn’t specifically mentioned, this decision is thought to be based on a 2016 study which found high levels of carcinogens in 58/60 artificial fields in the Netherlands[23].
Tackling microplastics and the waste problem of artificial turf
Unfortunately, it’s not just PFAS we have to worry about when it comes to artificial turf, these fields are also a huge source of microplastic pollution. In fact, the black rubber crumb infill, made from ground-up tires, is the largest source of intentionally added microplastic pollution in the EU[24]. This led the EU commission to ban the use of microplastic infills in 2023.
While banning microplastic infill is a positive step, it won’t eliminate all microplastic pollution from artificial turf. A recent study found that the plastic grass fibres themselves are a significant pollutant, with up to 300 million fibres being lost from a single pitch annually ending up in our rivers and seas[25].
Furthermore, new research shows that when PFAS and microplastics are combined they produce more toxic effects in invertebrates than when acting alone. The study showed the combined effects lead to developmental failures, delayed sexual maturity, and stunted growth in a common waterflea[26].
Additionally, these plastic carpets are nearly impossible to recycle, because they are made up of many different plastic layers. This often results in stockpiling, illegal disposal and misleading ‘recycling services’, adding to the environmental damage with microplastic dust, piles of discarded materials, and even toxic fires[27][28].
Time to reclaim the game and go back to natural grass
Surely there is an obvious answer to this problem – let’s just use natural grass! From a Fidra perspective, natural grass is always preferable due to its biodiversity and the wellbeing benefits of greenspaces.
At the very least, the UK should follow the EU’s lead in banning microplastic infill on artificial pitches, as well as introducing a universal restriction on PFAS. This would help protect our environment and human health from both microplastics and harmful ‘forever chemicals’.
For more information on chemical and microplastic pollution, visit our website, and if you haven’t already, make sure to sign up to our newsletter and follow us on social media for latest updates.
References
[1] “Synthetic Turf Fields, Forever Chemicals and the Safer Alternative: Organic Grass – PEER.org.” Accessed: Oct. 16, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://peer.org/synthetic-turf-fields-forever-chemicals-and-the-safer-alternative-organic-grass/
[2] A. Naim, “An Investigation into PFAS in Artificial Turf around Stockholm,” 2020.
[3] PEER – Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, “PFOS on hands of soccer players and coaches on artificial turf vs grass,” 2024.
[4] OECD, “Reconciling Terminology of the Universe of Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: Recommendations and Practical Guidance Series on Risk Management No.61 JT03479350 OFDE,” 2021.
[5] M. van Gerwen et al., “Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) exposure and thyroid cancer risk,” EBioMedicine, vol. 97, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104831.
[6] A. P. Bline, J. C. DeWitt, C. F. Kwiatkowski, K. E. Pelch, A. Reade, and J. R. Varshavsky, “Public Health Risks of PFAS-Related Immunotoxicity Are Real,” 2024. doi: 10.1007/s40572-024-00441-y.
[7] W. Wang, X. Hong, F. Zhao, J. Wu, and B. Wang, “The effects of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances on female fertility: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.114718.
[8] M. E. Morales-McDevitt et al., “The Air That We Breathe: Neutral and Volatile PFAS in Indoor Air,” Environ Sci Technol Lett, vol. 8, no. 10, 2021, doi: 10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00481.
[9] M. L. Brusseau, R. H. Anderson, and B. Guo, “PFAS concentrations in soils: Background levels versus contaminated sites,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 740, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140017.
[10] P. Byrne et al., “PFAS River Export Analysis Highlights the Urgent Need for Catchment-Scale Mass Loading Data,” Environ Sci Technol Lett, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 266–272, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1021/acs.estlett.4c00017.
[11] ECHA, “Scientific evaluation of the proposal to restrict per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)-Current status,” 2024.
[12] “Registry of restriction intentions until outcome – ECHA.” Accessed: Oct. 24, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://echa.europa.eu/sv/registry-of-restriction-intentions/-/dislist/details/0b0236e18663449b
[13] “The UK is falling behind the EU on regulating ‘forever’ chemicals: can the new government put this toxic legacy right?” Accessed: Oct. 24, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://chemtrust.org/pfas-divergence/
[14] “Toxic Forever Chemicals Infest Artificial Turf – PEER.org.” Accessed: Oct. 24, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://peer.org/toxic-forever-chemicals-infest-artificial-turf/
[15] “Industry in a Dither about PFAS in Synthetic Turf – PEER.org.” Accessed: Oct. 24, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://peer.org/industry-in-a-dither-about-pfas-in-synthetic-turf/
[16] “State Officials Warn Burrillville About Installing Turf Field Following PFAS Contamination in North Smithfield – ecoRI News.” Accessed: Oct. 24, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://ecori.org/state-officials-warn-burrillville-about-installing-turf-field-following-pfas-contamination-in-north-smithfield/
[17] “Bill S.524.” Accessed: Oct. 24, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/SD1961
[18] “Bill Text – AB-1423 Product safety: PFAS: artificial turf or synthetic surfaces.” Accessed: Oct. 24, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1423
[19] “California Assembly advances bill to ban toxic ‘forever chemicals’ in artificial turf | Environmental Working Group.” Accessed: Oct. 24, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/2023/05/california-assembly-advances-bill-ban-toxic-forever-chemicals
[20] UNEP, “Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), PFAS overview.” Accessed: Oct. 21, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://chm.pops.int/Implementation/IndustrialPOPs/PFAS/Overview/tabid/5221/Default.aspx
[21] “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | US EPA.” Accessed: Oct. 21, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas
[22] Eredivisie, “Artificial grass disappears in Eredivisie: clubs are obliged to use natural grass from 2025,” https://eredivisie.eu/news/artificial-grass-disappears-in-eredivisie-clubs-are-obliged-to-use-natural-grass-from-2025/.
[23] Ministry of Sport, “The Netherlands to phase out artificial turf over health and environmental concerns,” https://ministryofsport.com/the-netherlands-to-phase-out-artificial-turf-over-health-and-environmental-concerns/.
[24] ECHA, “Microplastics,” https://echa.europa.eu/sv/hot-topics/microplastics.
[25] W. P. de Haan et al., “The dark side of artificial greening: Plastic turfs as widespread pollutants of aquatic environments,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 334, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122094.
[26] T. Soltanighias, A. Umar, M. Abdullahi, M. A. E. Abdallah, and L. Orsini, “Combined toxicity of perfluoroalkyl substances and microplastics on the sentinel species Daphnia magna: Implications for freshwater ecosystems,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 363, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2024.125133.
[27] C. de Bernardi and J. H. Waller, “A quest for greener grass: Value-action gap in the management of artificial turf pitches in Sweden,” J Clean Prod, vol. 380, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134861.
[28] Zembla, “What happens to plastic and polluting artificial turf?,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5o3J7uy4Tk, 2018.