Sorting Out The Health Claims Over Synthetic Turf Fields

A decision by New Jersey health officials to close two synthetic turf fields over concerns of high lead levels has sparked a spate of news coverage raising fears about the safety of these increasingly popular sports venues.

For example, today's Washington Post has a story (Metro section p.4) on the potential hazard: "U.S. Investigates Artificial Turf's Lead Levels." The other night ABC News ran a more inflammatory piece typical of television news coverage, featuring a couple of activists who make it sound like artificial turf fields are nothing more than toxic waste dumps.

The Curmudgeon has some familiarity with these issues. As a member of the Board of Directors of the Arlington Soccer Association, which plays many games on artificial turf fields, he has looked into the issue. (The photo here is of the beautiful synthetic field at Washington-Lee High School in Arlington.)

Here's some reassuring news: the likelihood of any significant health hazard from articifial turf fields is quite low. That's not to say the risks shouldn't be investigated and quantified. But you certainly shouldn't worry too much if your children are playing on one of these fields.

Synthetic turf fields are becoming increasingly popular, especially in densely populated urban areas. The reasons are pretty obvious. Today's artificial turf is far more user-friendly than the old "astro-turf"--it's softer and less abrasive. Arlington recreation officials tell us that a typical lighted synthetic field in the County will get five times the usage of a "grass" field. We put grass in quotation marks for a reason: most grass fields quickly turn into dirt fields, with a few uneven clumps of grass, due to overuse.

One reason you get more usage from a synthetic field is that it doesn't have to be closed when it rains or when the field is wet. A week ago, after just one day of moderately heavy rain, Arlington's grass fields were closed for four days because they were wet and thus subject to damage if used. Another reason for more usage is year-round use. Grass fields typically need to be covered and off-limits in the winter. Also, synthetic fields don't need to be taken out of use for rehabilitation and rest every three of four years. Even after taking precautions to limit damage to grass fields, most still get destroyed by overuse.

In a dense urban area like Arlington, where land is at a premium, being able to quintuple the use of a given area by installing artificial turf makes the decision a practical no-brainer. The fields are expensive--between $500,000-$1 million, depending on the infrastructure needs at a given site--but over the long term they are less expensive given the greater use and lower maintenance. That's why Arlington, which has already installed seven synthetic fields, is busily planning three more, and we hope, more after that.

So, barring some serious health issue, artificial turf fields are here to stay and you'll see many more of them in the years to come. The current estimate is that there are 3500 in the U.S. today, a number that could easily double in just a few years.

What of the health issues? First off, you need to understand that grass fields have health issues too. It is true than nothing, including synthetic turf, beats playing on a well-maintained grass field. But few grass fields are in such condition, nor can they be kept in such condition unless play on them is severely constrained. Most are rutted, uneven, lumpy, bumpy surfaces, often with low spots that accumulate water and leave muddy areas days after the last rain. Running and playing on such a surface significantly raises the potential for many injuries.

Also, while people like to think of grass fields as some kind of organic commutation with nature, there's nothing natural about most grass fields. To grow grass in an urban environment requires chemicals--fertilizers, weed killers, insecticides. (It also requires a lot of fresh water.)

In the Washington Post story today, one New York lady who is on a mission against synthetic fields complained: "If I put a piece of synthetic turf on your desk, then I take it away, these pieces of recycled tires will be sitting on your desk. The question is, how does that pose a health risk to young children? Kids are bringing this into their homes. It's on their sneakers."

That's nice, but the same thing happens on a grass field. Kids bring home the chemicals used to treat the fields on their sneakers--and their clothes, their skin, their hair, etc. The difference is that you can't even see these chemicals and you generally don't know how much is there or when the chemicals were applied. (Kids also bring home mud, sand and grass clippings from such fields, which any soccer dad knows will have to be cleaned up if not intercepted at the front door.)

So in a sense this debate is little like the surreal debate surrounding nuclear power. Activists get all up in arms about nuclear power, with its fairly limited risks, while ignoring the enormous health and environmental damage done by a similarly sized coal-powered plant. For some reason coal and grass are "safe" simply because they are familiar.

As for synthetic turf fields, the primary worry has been with the ground up recycled tires that provide the "fill" for the green plastic fibers that make up the field. These black particles essentially take the place of dirt. They perform an environmental service as well, by providing a nifty use for old tires that otherwise would have to be difficult to dispose of.

The rubber in tires, however, is not exactly free of chemicals. There's no question that if you were to burn the tires, the fumes would be fairly toxic. Some researchers have raised an issue as to whether simply heating the black tire particles in a synthetic field can also release toxic fumes. One disadvantage of such a field is that on a hot, sunny day, it will get quite warm at the field surface. To date, however, no one has shown that at the temperatures occurring on even the hottest day, any concentration of fumes from tire rubber on an artificial field would accumulate and be inhaled by players.

(In one laboratory experiment, researchers found some potentially toxic fumes when heating tire rubber in an enclosed environment, but the test was far from any real-life situation. You could just as easily use the results to argue that children should not be allowed to play near any high-speed roadway on a hot day, which could keep kids off many grass fields too.)

Another concern was that players on synthetic fields could more easily get staph infections because the fibers on the fields can cause a minor burn-like scrape if slid upon, and the plastic allegedly harbors the staph bacteria more readily than grass. Suffice it to say that this theory has not been proven at all.

The latest concern is about lead. The frustrating thing about reading and viewing news articles on the issue is that they are long on nifty opposing quotes from activists on both sides and short on facts. We still can't tell from these stories whether the lead issue is associated with the tire particles or the plastic fibers, or both. For example, today's WaPo story focused on the tire particles, but a WaPo online story yesterday (from the Associated Press) strongly suggested that the lead issue is associated with the fake grass fibers, and may apply only to older fields made of nylon fibers as opposed to polyethylene. See "Feds Are Looking Into The Dangers of Lead In Artificial Turf."

[Yesteday's story sounded more authoritative. It pointed to the use of pigment containing lead chromate, used to make the field look green, in nylon fibers used by the manufacturer of Astroturf, and noted that 10 other NJ fields, made of polyethylene fibers, had tested negative for lead.]

Let's say, however, that there is at least a potential for some lead exposure from the tire particles. No need to panic. Lead is a known toxin if ingested. Hence, living in a home with lead paint is not much of a hazard in and of itself, but it can be a hazard if young children eat chips of lead paint or inhale lead fumes when the paint is sanded or blasted.

On a playing field, the issue would be whether the tire particles (or plastic grass) emit lead, and if so where it is. If it's just on the playing surface, it's not likely to be inhaled or ingested, and it will periodically be washed (or blown) away so that it won't accumulate. If' it is in dust that comes up above the field, then we need to know whether it is above background levels of lead, and whether it is at a level that is hazardous. Very few people spend a lot of time on artificial turf fields, so it is not like lead in a workplace with someone being exposed eight hours a day, five days a week.

For lead to be toxic, one needs to have a fairly significant exposure. Indeed, we all have lead in our bodies and get exposed to a certain amount of background lead. So a slight elevation in lead on a playing field that someone is on a couple times a week for a couple of hours is not going to be particularly hazardous. (Although we'd agree that hazard should be abated, within reason.)

The bottom line is that synthetic turf fields, like grass fields, probably have some hazards associated with them. Those risks are pretty small, however, and not unreasonable. And they may be more easily managed than those associated with grass fields. Our advice is not to worry. Let little Johnny (or Susie, or Omar, or Ivan or LaToya) play on that nice green, level artificial turf field, and let him/her have fun!

UPDATE: We learned one "hazard" of synthetic fields this afternoon: you may just find yourself spectating at a game played in a torrential downpour, whereas you'd be snugly at home with the game cancelled if it was on a grass field!