HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - August 5, 2009 K-02AGENDA ITEM14"70
CITY OF LODI
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA TITLE: Authorization to Solicit Bids for Artificial Turf Design Services
MEETING DATE: August 5,2009
PREPARED BY: Interim Parks and Recreation Director
RECOMMENDEDACTION: Authorization to solicit bids for artificial turf design services.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff is requesting authorization to seek proposals for engineering
and design services for the conversion of the existing grass athletic
field at the Grape Bowl to synthetic turf.
Services will include studying current conditions, presenting options and recommendations, preparing
drawings and bid specifications, providing cost estimates and participating in the bid process and
construction administration of the construction contract upon bid award.
City Council gave approval for this project on April 15, 2009. Approval included the leveraging of
$150,000 from the sale of the Lockeford property for matching County funding and the use of $1.2 million
from the Park Impact Mitigation Fee to install an artificial turf field at the Grape Bowl. The City recently
awarded a contract for $300,000 for handicap access, and a local fund-raising effort has resulted in
$110,000 in contributionsto commence with the Grape Bowl renovations.
Installing artificial turf at the Grape Bowl will greatly increase the availability of practice field space to the
community. Most of the City's large athletic fields are also used as storm drainage basins, limiting their
use during periods of wet weather. Installing artificial turf at the Grape Bowl will allow the facility to be
used year-round, even during periods of wet weather.
Artificial turf is commonplace in public facilities. It is used on community fields in Roseville and Davis, at
Manteca's Big League Dreams Sports Complex, at St. Mary's, Lincoln (Stockton), Calaveras and Sonora
high schools and San Joaquin Delta College, among many other locations. Artificial turf costs less to
maintain, eliminates the need for pesticides and fertilizers and allows for a 70 percent reduction in annual
water use.
The Synthetic Turf Council estimates there are 3,500 full-size artificial turf athletic fields, and many other
smaller applications such as playgrounds — including one recently installed at the White House. Although
there has been discussion about potential health risks associated with lead in older artificial turf fields,
health and environmental agencies have recently concluded artificial turf is safe.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a press release July 30, 2008 (Release #08-348)
titled, "CPSC Staff Finds Synthetic Turf Fields OK to Install, OK to Play On," and the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation on May 29, 2009 issued a press release titled, "Study Finds
Crumb Rubber Poses No Significant Threat to Air/Water Quality: Tests Show No Health Concerns at
SyntheticTurf Fields."
APPROVED:
Blair King, City MwAger
In 2007, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment released a 147 -page report on
the health effects from using recycled tires on playground surface and concluded risks are minimal
(Evaluation of Health Effects of Recycled Waste tires in Playground and Track Products, January 2007).
FISCAL IMPACT: The range of cost for design service is $25,000 to $35,000. Installing an
artificial turf field at the Grape Bowl with its existing amenities is less
expensive than constructing a new artificial turf field at another location and
adding the same amenities as the Grape Bowl. Several conventional grass
fields would need to be constructed to equal the same recreational capacity
as one artificial turf field.
FUNDING: N/A
James M. Rodems
Interim Parks and Recreation Director
cc: CityAttorney
Parks Project Coordinator
Parks Superintendent
Purchasing Officer
Application of Synthetic Turf
Grape Bowl Retrofit 2009/10
.40
i
r
Lodi City Council
August 5, 2009
Installation of synthetic turf field in
conjunction with ADA renovations scheduled
to begin Monday
Approved 4-0 by City Council on April 15
Subsequent request for additional
information regarding health/safety issues
Hazardous chemicals
Heat
Bacteria
njuries
No levels measured higher than background
Cancer risk claims unsubstantiated
Non-toxic byproducts do not degrade into
hazardous materials
Runoff not hazardous to aquatic life,
environment
No "heat island" effect
Surface temperature hotter than grass turf
Temperature increase can be up to 40 degrees
above ambient temperature
Watering can cool field to within 15 degrees of
ambient temperature
Bacteria
Staphylococcus has not been found in infill
synthetic turf fields
Materials used inhibit bacterial growth
Field temperatures may kill bacteria
Higher in some instances for turf, higher in
others for grass fields
Conclusions: Artificial turf no more harmful
than natural surface
Meyers and Barnhill, 2004, American Journal of Sports
Medicine, study of Texas High School football players
Fuller, et al, 2007, British Journal of Sports Medicine,
analysis of NCAA data
Ekstrand, et al, 2006, British Journal of Sports Medicine,
analysis of injury data from 10 European professional soccer teams
All-weather field usable year-round,
increasing use by a factor of 10
88% decrease in maintenance costs
70% decrease in water use
Reduced replacement costs
By 63% compared to annual resodding
By 20% compared to resodding every three
years
Natural turf limited to 76 events/year
Minimum number of events/year: 769
Maintenance cost/event:
Turf = $924.43
Synthetic = $66.32
Recapture five months of field access.
Ah
I
I
Ah
0
78,000 square -foot field:
Natural turf annual costs $60,000
Synthetic turf annual costs $ 47500
Reduction in water use 70%
Elimination of chemical
insecticides, herbicides and
fertilizers
Prep
time
for
natural turf
2-3
days
Prep
time
for
synthetic turf
2
hours
Synthetic turf costs 17% less to replace than
resodding over the same time
Numbers given in preliminary reports are for
100% replacement
Estimate replacing only 20-25% of the field at
15-20 years
Actual cost to be determined as part of
project
Artificial turf at the Grape Bowl is a cost-
effective, safe way to vastly increase
available athletic fields to the
community
Artificial turf studies
Environmental effects
1. An Assessment of Chemical Leaching, Releases to Air and Temperature At
Crumb -Rubber Infilled Synthetic Turf Fields; 2009, New York Department of
Environmental Conservation.
2. Follow -Up Study of the Environmental Aspects of Rubber Infill; 2008, Tyre
and Environment Association, Netherlands.
Health and Public Safety
3. Evaluation of Health Effects of Recycled Waste Tires in Playground and Track
Products; 2007, California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessement.
4. Fact Sheet -- Crumb-Rubberinfilled Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields; 2008, State
ofNew York Department of Health
5. Fact Sheet -- Artificial Turf Fields: Health Questions; 2007, Connecticut
Department of Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Assessment Program
6. Potential Exposure to Lead in Artificial Turf. Public Health Issues, Actions, and
Recommendations; 2008, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
7. A Review of the Potential Health and Safety Risks From Synthetic Turf Fields
Containing Crumb Rubber Mill; 2008, New York City Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene
8. CPSC Staff Finds Synthetic Turf Fields OK to Install, OK to Play On; 2008,
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission press release
Risk of Injury
9. Risk of Injury in Elite Football Played On Artificial Turf Versus Natural Grass:
A Prospective Two -Cohort Study; 2006, British Journal of Sports Medicine
10. Comparison of the Incidence, Nature and Cause of Injuries Sustained On Grass
and New Generation Artificial Turf by Male and Female Football Players; 2007,
British Journal of Sports Medicine
11. Incidence, Causes, and Severity of High School Football Injuries on FieldTurf
Versus Natural Grass; 2004, American Journal of Sports Medicine
12. Risk of Injwy on Artificial Turf and Natural Grass in Young Female Football
Players; 2007, British Journal of Sports Medicine
Additional Information
13. How Safe Are The New Artificial Turf Fields? Jay H. Williams, Ph.D., Virginia
Tech University
AN ASSESSMENT OF CHEMICAL LEACHING,
RELEASES TO AIR AND TEMPERATURE AT
CRUMB-RUBBERINFILLED SYNTHETIC TURF FIELDS
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
New York SW Department of Health
May 2009
Executive Summary
This report presents the findings from a New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) study, designed to assess potential
environmental and public health impacts from the use of crumb rubber as infill material
in synthetic turf fields. The New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) evaluated
the potential public health risks associated with the air sampling results. The study
focused on three areas of concern: the release and potential environmental impacts of
chemicals into surface water and groundwater; the release and potential public health
impacts of chemicals from the surface of the fields to the air; and elevated surface
temperatures and indicators of the potential for heat -related illness ("heat stress") at
synthetic turf fields.
The study included a laboratory evaluation, applied to four types of tire -derived
crumb rubber (car, truck, a mixture of car and truck, and a mixture cryogenically
produced), to assess the release of chemicals using the simulated precipitation leaching
procedure (SPLP). The results of this evaluation indicate a potential for release of zinc,
aniline, phenol, and benzothiazole. Zinc (solely from truck tires), aniline, and phenol
have the potential to be released above groundwater standards or guidance values. No
standard or guidance value exists for benzothiazole. However, as leachate moves through
soil to the groundwater table, contaminant concentrations are attenuated by adsorption
and degradation, and further reduced by dilution when contaminants are mixed with
groundwater. An analysis of attenuation and dilution mechanisms and the associated
reduction factors indicates that crumb rubber may be used as an infill without significant
impact on groundwater quality, assuming the limitations of mechanisms, such as
separation distance to groundwater table, are addressed.
Analysis of crumb rubber samples digested in acid revealed that the lead
concentration in the crumb rubber samples were well below the federal hazard standard
for lead in soil and indicate that the crumb rubber from which the samples were obtained
would not be a significant source of lead exposure if used as infill material in synthetic
1
turf fields. The evaluation of volatile and semi -volatile organic compounds by off -
gassing proved difficult to conduct quantitatively due to the strong absorptive nature of
the crumb rubber samples but the results did provide useful information for additional
analytes in the ambient air field investigation.
A risk assessment for aquatic life protection performed using the laboratory SPLP
results, found that crumb rubber derived entirely from truck tires may have an impact on
aquatic life due to the release of zinc. For the three other types of crumb rubber, aquatic
toxicity was found to be unlikely. When the results of the column tests are used in this
risk assessment model, no adverse impacts are predicted for any of the crumb rubber
types evaluated. Although the SPLP results predict a greater release of chemicals, the
column test is considered more representative of the field conditions.
The study also included a field sampling component for potential surface and
groundwater impacts. This work has not been fully completed at the time of this report.
The groundwater sampling that was conducted shows no impact on groundwater quality
due to crumb rubber related compounds, but this finding should not be considered as
conclusive due to the limited amount of data available. Additional sampling of surface
and groundwater at crumb -rubber infill synthetic t-irE fields will be conducted by
NYSDEC. The results will be summarized in a separate report.
A field evaluation of chemical releases from synthetic tuf surfaces was
conducted at two locations using an air sampling method that allowed for identification
of low concentration analytes and involved the evaluation of the potential releases of
analytes not previously reported. Few detected analytes were found. Many of the
analytes detected (e.g., benzene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, ethyl benzene, carbon
tetrachloride) are commonly found in an urban environment. A number of analytes found
in previous studies evaluating crumb rubber were detected at low concentrations (e.g., 4-
methyl-2-pentanone, benzothiazole, alkane chains (C4 -C11)).
2
A public health evaluation was conducted on the results from the ambient air
sampling and concluded that the measured levels of chemicals in air at the Thomas
Jefferson and John Mullaly Fields do not raise a concern for non -cancer or cancer health
effects for people who use or visit the fields.
The ambient air particulate matter sampling did not reveal meaningful differences
in concentrations measured on the field and those measured upwind of the field. This
may be explained by the lack of rubber dust found in the smaller size fraction (respirable
range) through the application of aggressive sampling methods on the surface of the
fields. Overall, the findings do not indicate that these fields are a significant source of
exposure to respirable particulate matter.
The results of the temperature survey show significantly higher surface
temperatures for synthetic turf fields as compared to the measurements obtained on
nearby grass and sand surfaces. While the temperature survey found little difference for
the indicators of heat stress between the synthetic turf, grass, and sand surfaces, on any
given day a small difference in the heat stress indicators could result in a different
guidance for the different surface types. Although little difference between indicators of
heat stress measurements was found, the synthetic turf surface temperatures were much
higher and prolonged contact with the hotter surfaces may have the potential to create
discomfort, cause thermal injury and contribute to heat -related illnesses. Awareness of
the potential for heat illness and how to recognize and prevent heat illness needs to be
raised among users and managers of athletic fields, athletic staff, coaches and parents.
This assessment of certain aspects of crumb -rubber infilled synthetic turf fields
was designed to collect data under conditions representative of "worst case" conditions
(e.g., summer -time temperatures that should maximize off -gassing of chemicals).
However, samples collected under different conditions, using different methods or at
different fields could yield different results. For example, the results of measurements
may be different for fields of other ages or designs (e.g., different volumes of crumb
rubber infill, non -crumb rubber infill) or for indoor fields. This report is not intended to
3
broadly address all synthetic turf issues, including the potential public health implications
associated with the presence of lead-based pigments in synthetic turf fibers. Information
about lead in synthetic turf fibers is available in a Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention Health Advisory available at
httt)://www2a.cdc.gov/han/archivesys/V iewMsg V.asn?AlertNum=00275
FOLLOW-UP STUDY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASPECTS OF RUBBER INFILL
A laboratory study (perform weathering tests) and a field
studv
rubber crumb from car tyres as infill on artificial turf
Summary
Opdrach*ver/Client Tyre and EnvironmentAssociation / RecyBEM
Loire 150
2491 AK Den Haag
Telephone (070) 444 06 33
E-mail: berriftecvbem.nl
Association VACO
Archimedesweg 31
2333 CM Leiden
Telephone (071) 56 86 970
E-mail: vaco@kcleiden.nl
Ons kenmerk/Our reference A924220/R20070368/UHo/eal
Autodsade/Authorisation ir. R. van Selst
Datum/Date 31 March 2008
Auteur/Author dr. U. Hofstra
Follow-up study ofthe environmental aspects of rubberinfill A924220R20070388
SUMMARY
In 2006 and 2007, a broad-based study was conducted into the environmental impact and
health risks of the use of rubber infill from recycled tyres on artificial tib. The study showed
that there was no threat of any significant environmental impact or health risks, with the
possible exception of the risk to the environment caused by zinc leaching from the rubber in
the long term. This was the reason for a follow-up study, which was intended to answer the
question of whether zinc leaching from rubber infill poses a risk to the environment in the
long tern.
The study was carried out by INTRON in Sittard, in association with TNO Quality Services,
and was commissioned by the VACO (Tyre and Wheel Trade Association) and the
Vereniging Band & Milieu (Tyre and the Environment Association) in consultation with the
Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) and the National
Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM).
The study
The study was divided into two phases: a laboratory study and a field study.
In the laboratory, a lysimeter set-up in a climate chamber was used to perform weathering
tests on artificial turf systems with rubber infill from car tyres. The weathering process of the
rubber was accelerated in order to measure the effect of weathering on the leaching of zinc.
Both shredded car tyres and shredded commercial vehicle tyres were tested for the amount of
zinc that leached out of the rubber infill.
Both systems without an underlay and with a lava underlay (10 cm thick) were tested. The
leaching from a system with a sand layer (40 cm thick) was calculated using an absorption
coefficient for sand based on information in the literature.
The field study consisted of analysing the drainage water from six artificial turf fields to
ascertain exactly how much zinc leaches out of an artificial turf field with rubber infill made
from rubber crumb from car tyres.
Weathering tests
In combination with high temperature, ozone is the main cause of degradation in car tyre
rubber. The tests with the lysimeter showed that in a concentration of ozone 15 times higher
than the outside atmosphere, the leaching of zinc increases and then remains constant.
The leaching of zinc from artificial birf with rubber infill from commercial vehicle tyres is
twice as high as leaching from artificial turf with rubber infill from car tyres.
The leaching of zinc was measured in the percolation water in the lysimeter and by means of a
column test of the rubber crumb weathered in the lysimeter. The data from both of these
leaching methods was used to calculate the cumulative leaching of the entire artificial turf
system, including lava underlays and drainage sand, and extrapolated over a period of several
decades.
The horizontal dotted line in the graphs is the policy standard for the emission of zinc into the
soil, which is derived from the Decree on Soil Quality.
Contractor's Report to the Board
Evaluation of Health Effects of
Recycled Waste Tires in
Playground and Track Products
Produced under contract by.' C A
AEl t6H..a ..!
January 2007
i6mm.....
MEN
INTEGRATED
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
BOARD
Executive Summary
In response to the California Integrated Waste Management Board's (CIWMB) need to better
understand the potential health risks to children using outdoor playground and track surfaces
constructed from recycled waste tires, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA) conducted the following studies.
• The playground surfaces were evaluated for the release of chemicals that could cause toxicity
in children following ingestion or dermal contact. Three routes of child exposure to
chemicals in the rubber were considered: 1) ingestion of loose rubber tire shreds (acute
exposure), 2) ingestion via hand -to -surface contact followed by hand-to-mouth contact
(chronic exposure), and 3) skin sensitization via dermal contact (acute exposure).
■ Playground surfaces constructed from recycled tires were tested for their ability to attenuate
fall -related impacts.
• The potential of these rubberized surfaces to impact the local environment, including the
local ecology, was also addressed through a discussion of the published literature.
Evaluation of toxicity due to ingestion of tire shreds based on the existing literature
OEHHA found 46 studies in the scientific literature that measured the release of chemicals by
recycled tires in laboratory settings and in field studies where recycled tires were used in civil
engineering applications: 49 chemicals were identified. Using the highest published levels of
chemicals released by recycled tires, the likelihood for noncancer health effects was calculated
for a one-time ingestion of ten grams of tire shreds by a typical three-year-old child; only
exposure to zinc exceeded its health -based screeningvalue (i, e, value promulgated by a
regulatory agency such as OEHHA or U. S. EPA). Overall, we consider it unlikely that a one-
time ingestion of tire shreds would produce adverse health effects. Seven of the chemicals
leaching from tire shreds in published studies were carcinogens, yielding a 1.2 x 10" (1.2 in ten
million) increased cancer risk for the one-time ingestion described above. This risk is well below
the di minimis level of 1 x 10" (one in one million), generally considered an acceptable cancer
risk due to its small magnitude compared to the overall cancer rate (OEHHA, 2006).
Evaluation of toxicity due to ingestion of tire shreds based on gastric digestion simulation
OEHHA conducted a gastric digestion experiment in which 22 chemicals were found to be
released by tire shreds incubated for 21 hours at 37°C in a solution mimicking the gastric
environment. OEHHA then compared the levels of released chemicals to their health -based
screening values, assuming a young child ingested ten grams of tire shreds; all exposures were at
or below the screening values suggesting a low risk of noncancer acute health effects. Five of the
chemicals released by tire shreds in the gastric digestion experiment were carcinogens. If the
released chemicals were ingested as a onetime event and averaged over a lifetime, the cancer risk
would be 3.7 x 10"8 (3.7 in one hundred million). This risk is considerably below the di minimis
risk level of 1 x 10-6 (one in one million), generally considered an acceptable cancer risk due to its
small magnitude compared to the overall cancer rate (OEHHA, 2006). The assumption that the
risk from a onetime exposure is equivalent to the risk from the same dose spread over a lifetime is
uncertain, and may overestimate or underestimate the true risk.
Evaluation of toxicity due to chronic hand -to -surface -to -mouth activity
OEHHA performed wipe sampling of in -use playground surfaces containing recycled tire rubber;
one metal (zinc) and four PAHs were measured at levels that were at least three times
background. Assuming ingestion of the above five chemicals via chronic hand-to-mouth contact,
exposures were below the correspondingchronic screening values, suggesting low risk of
adverse noncancer health effects. From among the five chemicals identified by wipe sampling,
the PAH chrysene is a carcinogen. Assuming playground use from 1 through 12 years of age, an
increased cancer risk of 2.9 x 10-6 (2.9 in one million) was calculated due to the chronic ingestion
of chrysene. This risk is slightly higher than the di minimis risk level of 1 x 10"6 (one in one
million), generally considered an acceptable cancer risk due to its small magnitude compared to
the overall cancer rate (OEHHA, 2006). Calculation of the 2.9 x 10-6 (2.9 in one million) value
does not account for many uncertainties, some of which would decrease the risk while others
would increase the risk.
Testing for skin sensitization by playground surfaces made of recycled tires
Since children commonly contact these rubberized surfaces with their hands and other body parts,
and since natural rubber contains the proven skin sensitizer latex, OEHHA contracted a
laboratory to perform skin sensitizationtesting of tire -derived surfacing. Skin sensitization
testing in the guinea pig was performed by Product Safety Laboratories (Dayton, NJ) with tire -
derived playground surfacing as well as with the synthetic rubber EPDM, no sensitizationwas
observed, suggesting that these surfaces would not cause skin sensitization in children, nor would
they be expected to elicit skin reactions in children already sensitized to latex.
Evaluating the potential for damage to the local environment and ecology
Following a fire in a playground surface made of chipped tires at the Yulupa Elementary School
in Sonoma County, soil samples from under the playground contained levels of metals, VOCs,
PAHs, dioxins and furans that were at or below background, suggesting a low risk to the local
ecology. Also followingthe Yulupa fire, the air above the bum site wasjudged by U.S. EPA to
pose no health risks to clean-up workers, and the soil/rubber mixture removed from the site was
judged not to be hazardous waste, and could therefore be deposited in a designated class III waste
facility.
Groundwater in contact with tire shreds contained elevated levels of many chemicals; however,
those levels rapidly approached background a few feet outside of the tire trench. Additional
published studies indicate that concentrated leachate produced in the laboratory from tire shreds,
crumb rubber or whole tires was toxic in 19/31 studies to a variety of organisms including
bacteria, algae, aquatic invertebrates, fish, frogs and plants; however, it is unlikely that the use of
shredded tires in outdoor applications such as playground surfaces would result in the leaching
during rain events of high enough concentrations of chemicals to cause such effects. Further,
shredded tires used in applications above the ground water table, as is the case for playground
surfaces, produced no toxicity in sentinel species.
Evaluation of potential injury from falls on playground surfaces made of recycled tires
Using an accelerometer to test impact attenuation by California playground surfaces made of
recycled tires, OEHHA staff visited 32 rubberized playground surfaces, to determine if the state
mandated (CCR sections 65700-65750) standard for head impact (Head Impact Criterion or HIC)
of < 1000 was being met. Only 31 percent of rubberized playground surfaces passed the HIC
standard. This is compared to 100 percent for surfaces made of wood chips, although only five
surfaces of wood chips were tested. As the fall heights of playground structures increased, the
underlying rubberized playground surface was more likely to fail the HIC standard; however,
even at fall heights of 9-12 feet, some rubberized surfaces passed the standard. HIC values were
not affected by the age of the rubberized surface, either during the first 2-3 months following
installation or during the first two years. HIC values of rubberized surfaces increased with
increasing surface temperature; in one playground the HIC value measured at dawn increased
almost 20 percent when measured again in the afternoon during the heat of the day. These data
point out the importance of testing the impact attenuation of rubberized playground surfaces to
ensure that they meet the safety standards already in place.
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Flanigan Square 547 River Street Troy, New York 12180-2216
Richard F. Daines, M.D. Wendy E. Saunders
Commissioner Chief of Staff
FACT SHEET
Crumb-Rubberinfilled Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields
August2008
PURPOSE
There are several kinds of synthetic turf surfaces (e. g. , surfaces that use a fill material ("infill") between
the blades of artificial grass and those that do not), and synthetic t_�f may be installed for,differentuses
(e.g., single or multiple sport athletic fields, landscaping, golf applications). The focus of this fact sheet is
athletic fields with crumb rubber infilled synthetic txE. This fact sheet was developed to assist people in
making decisions about installing or using this kind of synthetic t-ifathletic field. Considerations related
to other kinds of synthetic turf fields are not addressed in this fact sheet.
BACKGROUND
The first well-publicized use of AstroTurf, a synthetic turf for athletic fields, was at the Houston
Astrodome in 1966. This first generation of synthetic turfwas essentially a shortpile carpet with a foam
backing. Since then, design changes have resulted in a greater variety of synthetic turf athletic fields.
One type of synthetic turf is fabricatedusing synthetic fibers, manufactured to resemble natural grass, and
a base material that stabilizes and cushions the playing surface. The fibers are typically made from nylon,
polypropylene or polyethylene and are connected to a backing material. The base material, also called
infill, consists of one or more granular materials that are worked in between the fibers during the
installationprocess. Commonly used base materials are granulated crumb rubber (usually from used
tires), flexible plastic pellets, sand, and rubber -coated sand. A combination of sand and crumb rubber is
often used.
Crumb rubber is produced by grinding used tires. Steel and fiber tire components are removed during the
process and the rubber pellets are sorted by size. Pellet sizes ranging from about one -sixteenth to one-
quarter inch in diameter are used on synthetic turf. Crumb rubber is typicdlly applied at a rate of two to
three pounds per square foot of field surface.
HEALTH AND SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS
Some potential health and safety considerations related to synthetic turf have generated public concern.
These include:
Heat stress
Injury
Infection
Latex allergy
Chemical exposure
Heat Stress
Synthetic turffields absorb heat, resulting in surface temperatures that are much higher than the
temperatures of the surrounding air. In June 2002 at Brigham Young University (BYU) in Utah, the
average surface temperature on a synthetic t.Tf field was reported to be 117°F while the average surface
temperatures on natural turf and asphalt were 78°F and 110°F, respectively. A maximum surface
temperature of 200°F on the BYU synthetic turf field was reported. A turfgrass specialist at the
University of Missouri reported measuring an air temperature of 138°F at "head-level" height on the
university's synthetic txf field on a sunny 98°F day. The surface temperature of the field was reported to
be 178°F. A study conducted at Penn State University measured surface temperatures on experimental
plots of nine different types of infilled tLy-E. Temperature measurements were made on three occasions.
The average air temperatures reported were 79°, 78°, and 85°F. The corresponding average surface
temperatures reported for the synthetic turf plots are 1200, 130" and 146°F.
Water can be applied to synthetic turf to reduce the surface temperatures on warm days. A study at BYU
found that watering synthetic turf lowered the surface temperature from 174°F to 8 5'F, but the
temperature rose to 120°F in five minutes and to 164°F in twenty minutes. A study conducted by Penn
State University on experimental synthetic turf plots examined the effect of watering synthetic turf on
surface temperature. Measurements were made on three occasions. For one monitoring period, surface
temperatures ranging from about 130" to 160°Fwere lowered initially to about 75°F, but increased within
30 minutes to temperatures ranging from about 900 to 120°F, where they remained fairly stable for the
three-hour monitoring period.
The surface temperatures reported on synthetic turf fields can get high enough to reach levels of
discomfort and may contribute to heat stress among users of the fields. While watering synthetic turf may
reduce surface temperatures, other factors are likely to influence its effectiveness. At the present time,
NYSDOH is unaware of any studies that have examined the role of synthetic tzf in contributing to heat
stress or that have compared the occurrence of heat stress among athletes playing on natural t-irf and
synthetic turf.
Because of the potential for high temperatures on infilled synthetic t-if fields, it is importantthat people
who play or work on the fields be provided with adequate warnings regarding the potential for heat stress.
People should also be advised to remain hydrated and to seek relief from the heat in shaded areas. The
potential for and frequency of high surface temperatures warrant considerationwhen making decisions
about installing and using a synthetic t-irf field.
Injury
There is a common perception that there are more sports injuries on synthetic than on natural turf athletic
fields. Many factors influence the rate of sports injuries, including the type of playing surface. The many
kinds of synthetic turf surfaces and changes in the turf products over the years complicate the assessment
of how the playing surface affects injury rates. Other risk factors have been implicated in injury rates
among athletes, in addition to the type of playing surface. These risk factors include level of competition,
skill level, age, shoe type, previous injury and rehabilitation, and a number of individual physical
characteristics. We identified five studies that compared injury (e.g,, sprains, lacerations, fractures) rates
among athletes when playing on infilled synthetic turf and natural turf fields. Although the ability of the
studies to detect differences in the injury rates was limited by the small number of injuries reported, the
studies concluded that there were no major differences in overall injury rates between natural and infilled
synthetic tzf. Although each study found some differences in specific injury types, there was no
consistent pattern across the studies.
The potential for head injuries from contact with the surfaces has been assessed by determining the ability
of the surfaces to absorb impacts. Tests have shown that the force of impact on asphalt surfaces is much
higher than the level generally accepted to be associated with serious head injury. The force of impact on
many types of natural t-irf and all types of synthetic turf tested are below this level. The force of impact
on frozen natural turf is typically above the acceptable level. No data are available for the force of impact
on frozen synthetic turf.
The abrasiveness of synthetic t-irf fibers may contributeto the injury risk among athletes, particularly for
abrasions or "turf burns." The degree of abrasiveness appears to be dependent on the composition and
shape of the turf fibers. A study conducted at Penn State University suggests that synthetic turf with nylon
fibers is more abrasive than synthetic turf with other types of fibers.
Infection Risk
Some people have expressed concern that infections, including methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus
aureus (MRSA), may be more common among users of synthetic t-iffieldsthan users of natural t-zf
fields. This possibility has not been studied systematically, and no definitive statements can be made
about differences in risk between the two surfaces.
At least two questions are important in evaluating the risk of infection. Does skin damage occur more
frequently on synthetic turf than natural turf, thus providing a place where infections are more likely to
occur? Are there more germs on synthetic turf than natural turf?
While injury studies have not consistently identified differences in abrasion and laceration risks between
natural and infilled synthetic tirf, some types of synthetic turf may result in more skin abrasions.
Although very few tests have been performed, the available data do not suggest the widespread presence
of infectious agents, such as MRSA, on synthetic turf fields. Also, the available information indicates
that outdoor or indoor synthetic turf surfaces are no more likely to harbor infectious agents than other
surfaces in those same environments. Disease outbreak investigations conducted in response to illnesses
caused by a variety of germs (e.g., MRSA, Campylobacter, meningococcus, echovirus, herpes simplex
virus, hepatitis virus, coxsackie virus) have not identified playing fields, either natural or synthetic, as
likely to increase the risk of transmitting infections.
Skin cuts and abrasions that may result from contact with athletic fields, including both natural and
synthetic fields, are susceptibleto infection. Athletes and others developing skin abrasions should clean
the wounds and seek prompt medical attention. Athletes should avoid sharing towels (on and off the
field), equipment, razors, soap and other objects with others, because sharing these items can spread
germs.
Latex Allergy
Latex, a substance found in natural rubber, contains substances called "latex allergens," which can cause
an allergic response in some people. About 6 percent of the general population is allergic to the
substances in latex. Tire rubber contains the latex allergen, although at much lower levels than in latex
gloves and other consumer products. People playing on synthetic t-irf may be exposed to latex allergens
through direct contact with the skin (dermal exposure) and inhalation of small rubber particles suspended
in the air.
A study conducted for the California Environmental Protection Agency tested samples of tire rubber on
the skin of guinea pigs. None of the animals developed any rashes or allergic reactions from contact with
the rubber.
Whether crumb rubber can cause an allergic response in people is not known. NYSDOH is unaware of
any occurrences of latex allergy associated with contact with crumb rubber or synthetic of fields.
Chemical Exposure
Exposure to a chemical requires contact with it. Contact with a chemical occurs in three ways:
swallowing it (ingestion exposure), breathing it (inhalation exposure), and having it come in contact with
the skin (dermal exposure) or eyes (ocular exposure). The potential for harmful effects from exposure to
a chemical depends on the amount of the chemical a person contacts, how the chemical enters the body
(ingestion, inhalation, dermal, or ocular), how often contact occurs, and the toxic properties of the
chemical. The ability of a chemical to be released from a substance (e.g., crumb rubber) is an important
factor in determining how much exposure actually occurs. Other factors that can influence a person's risk
for adverse health effects from environmental chemicals include age, gender, general health, genetic
differences, exposure to other chemicals and lifestyle choices.
Tires are manufactured from natural and synthetic rubbers along with numerous chemical additives,
including zinc, sulfur, carbon black, and oils that contain polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and volatile
organic chemicals. Because crumb rubber is manufactured from used tires, it probably contains the same
chemicals as tire rubber.
Studies have been conducted by the California Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health to assess the potential for
ingestion exposure to the chemicals in crumb rubber by children playing on synthetic t3f. Both studies
concluded that health r i s ks to children resulting from the ingestion of crumb rubber are low.
The Norwegian Institute of Public Health also collected data to assess potential health risks resulting from
dermal and inhalation exposures to chemicals contained in synthetic turf fields. Health assessments were
conducted for adults and children. The researchers concluded that adverse health effects resulting dermal
exposures to crumb rubber or from inhalation exposures to organic chemicals released from the fields are
unlikely. No health assessment of the concentrations of rubber particles in the air was made.
A French study measured the concentrations of organic chemicals emitted as gases (known as volatile
organic compounds or VOCs) from crumb rubber under laboratory conditions. The data were used by the
French National Institute for Industrial Environment and Risks to evaluate possible health effects from
inhaling VOCs released from synthetic turf . The study authors concluded that the concentrations of
organic compounds emitted did not pose a health concern for athletes, officials or spectators.
Some types of synthetic turf fibers contain elevated levels of lead (e.g., in the range of about 2,000 to
9,000 parts per million). Degradation of these fibers can form a dust that presents a potential source of
lead exposure to users of the fields. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry addressed the potential for lead exposures from synthetic turf
fibers in a June 2008 Health Advisory (http://www.odc.gw/nae //www.odc.gov/nadUaWartificiabzf . For new or
replacement installations, select synthetic turf products that do not have elevated lead levels.
Our review of the available information on crumb rubber and crumb rubber infilled turf fields indicates
that ingestion, dermal or inhalation exposures to chemicals in or released from crumb rubber do not pose a
significant public health concern.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A number of other factors may need to be considered when installing and using synthetic turf.
Use: Synthetic turf is more durable than natural turf and can be used without the rest periods that natural
turf requires to keep the turf healthy. The New York City Department of Parks and Recreation
(NYCDPR) estimates that on an annual basis, permitted use (hours per year) for synthetic turf athletic
fields is 28 percent higher than for natural grass fields.
Installation: Installation costs of synthetic turf vary depending on the amount of site preparation required
and the specific field design. The installation costs of synthetic turf are generally much higher than the
installation costs of natural turf.
Maintenance: The maintenance costs of synthetic turf will vary depending on the field's use and design,
but are typically estimated to be lower than the maintenance costs of natural turf. Natural turf requires
regular mowing, fertilizer application, pest control and possibly watering. Synthetic t -If requires
replacing infill materials, repairing seams and removing weeds and moss. Specialized equipment, which
may or may not be included in the field's purchase price, is required for these activities.
Lifetime: NYCDPR estimates that the lifetime of a natural trf field is on the order of five years. The
synthetic turf industry estimates that the lifetime of an infilled synthetic t-liEathletic field is eight to ten
years, depending on care during installation and use. NYCDPR and other New York entities have seen
similar lifetimes.
Connecticut Department of Public Health
Environmental & OccupadonalHealthAssessment
TP-g►am
v Wv--i _ :- 410 Capitol Avenue MSW MEOH, PO Box 340308
Hartford, CT 06134-0308
(860) 509-7740
October 2007 www.agov/dph
Artificial Turf Fields:
Health Questions
Cities and towns across Connecticut have increasingly opted for replacement of i a
grass fields with a form of artificialturf that uses recycled rubber tires. The ,� J
tires are processed into crumb rubber and used as an infill material to cushion
the playing surface. Stated advantages over natural grass fields are reduced wa-
tering and maintenance, avoiding the need for pesticides, reduced injuries, and
an "all-weather" playing surface. Questions have been raised regarding health,
safety and environmental aspects of the rubber infill material. Rubber contains
industrial chemicals that can be released into the air during playing and which
may runoff into the environment in rainwater. This fact sheet focuses upon the potential health effects to
athletes and spectators using these fields, many of whom are school-age children.
What Chemicals Can Be Released By The Infill Material?
Some chemicals in rubber vaporize to form a gas (volatile organic chemicals or VOCs such as toluene and
benzothiazole), while others remain in the solid -phase (e.g., metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or
PAHs). Given the variety and types of chemicals involved, it is not surprising that some have toxic or
carcinogenic activity when tested in laboratory animals. VOC release from crumb rubber infill is ex-
pected to be greatest in sunny, hot weather. Particle release may be affected by the number of athletes us-
ing the field and the intensity of their exercise. Temperature gradients and wind will generally afford
rapid dilution and low concentrations in the breathing zones of athletes.
How Can People Be Exposed To Rubber Chemicals At
Artificial Turf Fields?
Inhalation and ingestion exposures arepossible. Because their play may create airborne particles and
because of their high ventilation rate, athletes are expected to receive the greatest exposure. Athletes may
also inadvertently ingest dust particles that cling to hands and clothing. Those on the sidelines or
grandstands will receive lower exposures. It is also possible that if young children accompany parents to
these fields, they may swallow the infill material itself, although the ingestion of whole granules is not
likely to be a frequent occurrence. This possibility may increase if artificial turf fields are placed at
elementary schools and playgrounds. Since the particles cling to shoes and clothing, it is possible for the
infill material to be tracked into homes after leaving the field. This is expected to cause much less
exposure than from the fields themselves.
Page 2
Are Peoble EXDosed To These Chemicals In Other Ways?
Yes. Most of the chemicals emitted from the rubber granules are quite common in urban and suburban
air. Some comes from rubber itself as roughly 1-2% of the respirable dust in Los Angeles is estimated to
come from the wearing of tires. Other sources for these chemicals are also quite common including car
exhaust, furnaces, consumer products, flooring and foods. For example, studies in California
demonstrate that rubber -based resilient flooring off -gases benzothiazole and other rubber -related VOCs.
These materials are commonly used indoors in schools.
Is There A Health Risk?
Based upon the current evidence, apublic health risk appears unlikely. However, there is
still uncertainty and additional investigation is warranted A variety of governmental bodies
including Norway, Sweden, New Jersey and California have recently reviewed the health is-
sues; their assessments have not found a public health threat. Sources of exposure unrelated to
artificial txf fields are likely more important than the to f fields for many chemicals. While
DPH does not believe there is a unique or significant health threat from chemical releases that
can be inhaled or ingested, the uncertainties warrant further investigation.
DPH's review does not find any reason to stop installation of these fields. Currently there are no federal
or state limits on the installation of crumb rubber -based turf fields. Therefore, it is up to towns to make a
case-by-case decision on whether artificial turf is the right choice for a particular setting. While we see no
health evidence to stop installations, DPH acknowledges that much of the information is very recent and
this area is rapidly evolving. Additionally, the potential exposures and risks have not been fully charac-
terized. DPH recommends that towns consider these uncertainties as part of the array of issues evaluated
when deciding whether to install artificial turf fields (e.g., cost, maintenance, public acceptability).
I Get More Information
Connecticut Department of Public Health
Environmental & Occupational Health Assessment Program
Environmental Health Section
410 Capitol Avenue, MS# 11 CHA
PO Box 340308
Hartford, CT 06134-0308
(860)509-7740
www,ct.gov/dph
Health Alert Network- Archive 4stm
http://www2a.cdc.gov/HAN/ArchiveSys/ViewNtgV.asp?AlertNunr-=0027:
Home I About CDC I Press Bom I Ending ( A-dndex I Centers, Institute BJfflcss I Training Trployment I Contact Us
Health Alert Network
CDC en Epa61
Search:
HM Menu
f�t Horne This is an official
INowFmnft CDC HEALTH ADVISORY
i IT Infrastructure
FHAN/PHIN drisdictioru
Otherdrisdictions Distributed via Health Alert Network
Advanced Practice Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 16:10 EDT (4:10 PM EDT)
Centers CDCHAN-00275-2008-06-18-ADV-N
HANaksaaesArchnre Potential Exposure to Lead in Artificial Turf:
Public Health Issues, Actions, and Recommendations
Public Health Issues
I n the course of conducting a routine health investigation at a metal facility in Newark, NJ, the
New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (NJDHSS) and the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) tested a nearby community athletic field for lead
contamination. Samples taken from the field showed high levels of lead in the field dust, but
the lead did not come from the scrap metal facility.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is partnering with its sister -agency,
ATSDR, to monitor this situation because of CDC's expertise in lead poisoning prevention.
After determining that the lead source was the artificial turf, NJDHSS began to test other
artificial turf fields looking for similar high lead levels in artificial turf fibers. These findings
raised concerns about potentially high lead levels in artificial turf used in other locations
including fields and playgrounds. NJDHSS tested a limited sample of athletic fields in New
Jersey. Any questions regarding the specificfields tested should be directed to NJDHSS.
As determined by NJDHSS, limited sampling of additional athletic fields in New Jersey and
commercial products indicatesthat artificial turf made of nylon or nylon/polyethylene blend
fibers contains levels of lead that pose a potential public health concern. Tests of artificial turf
fields made with only polyethylene fibers showed that these fields contained very low levels of
lead.
Information provided by NJDHSS to CDC and ATSDR indicatesthat some of the fields with
elevated lead in either dust and/or turf fiber samples were weathered and visibly dusty. Fields
that are old, that are used frequently, and that are exposed to the weather break down into
dust as the turf fibers are worn or demonstrate progressive signs of weathering, including
fibers that are abraded, faded or broken. These factors should be considered when evaluating
the potential for harmful lead exposures from a given field.
The risk for harmful lead exposure is low from new fields with elevated lead levels in their turf
fibers because the turf fibers are still intact and the lead is unlikely to be available for harmful
exposuresto occur. As the turf ages and weathers, lead is released in dust that could then be
ingested or inhaled, and the risk for harmful exposure increases. If exposures do occur, CDC
currently does not know how much lead the body will absorb; however, if enough lead is
absorbed, it can cause neurological development symptoms (e.g. deficits in IQ). Additional
tests are being performed by NJDHSS to help us better understand the absorption of lead from
these products.
I n general, children less than 6 years old are more likely to be affected by lead than adults
because of increased contact with lead sources in the environment, including lead
contaminated house dust and soil. Children also absorb lead more easily. Children's
developing nervous systems are also more susceptibleto the adverse health effects of lead
1 of 08/04/20094:25:
A REVIEW OF THE POTENTIAL HEALTH
AND SAFETY RISKS FROM SYNTHETIC
TURF FIELDS CONTAINING CRUMB
RUBBER INFILL
Prepared for
New York City Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene
New York, NY
Prepared by
TRC
Windsor, Connecticut
May 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Background and Purpose of Review
Synthetic turf fields have been installed in many athletic and playing fields throughout
New York City (NYC), the United States and the world. The NYC Department of Parks and
Recreation (DPR) began installing synthetic turf playing fields in 1997 with a total of 94
installations completed at the time of this report (87 crumb rubber infill fields and 7 carpet -style
fields). An additional 68 synthetic turf fields are either planned or under construction around the
five boroughs. Of these planned fields, 32 will have crumb rubber infill for use in high impact
areas and the other 36 will be carpet -style t xf. The carpet -style synthetic fields are part of the
P1aNYC effort to address the increased demand for playing space by converting existing asphalt
fields into multi-purpose use fields.
Synthetic turf fields are used in NYC parks because they:
• Provide even playing surfaces.
• Have padding that helps prevent injuries.
• Need no watering or mowing.
• Use no fertilizers or pesticides.
• Can be used year-round and in most weather.
• Do not need to be closed to protect or re -sod grass.
• Last a long time with little maintenance.
This report focuses primarily on synthetic turf fields with crumb rubber infill. The infill -
type synthetic turf fields in NYC parks contain several layers, including:
• A bottom layer composed of geotextile.
• Middle layers composed of broken stone with plastic perforated pipe for drainage and
rubber padding for shock absorbance.
• A top layer composed of carpet with soft, flexible plastic grass.
• Crumb rubber infill made from recycled tires added to the 'grass' layer to provide
extra padding, serve as a ballast to hold the carpet down, and keep the grass upright.
Sand is sometimes mixed with the crumb rubber.
Recent concern about the potential for exposure to chemicals found in crumb rubber, also
known as ground rubber, prompted NYC DPR to request assistance from the NYC Department
of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH). In response to this request, and with a grant awarded
by the New York Community Trust, the DOHMH contracted a private consultant, TRC, to lead
an intensive literature review focusing on the potential exposures and health effects related to
synthetic turf fields and to identify gaps in what is known.
ES -1
This report includes an assessment of the currently available literature and is meant to
assist athletic field installers and operators in making decisions related to the selection and use of
synthetic turf fields. The report is organized into six chapters. The Executive Summary provides
a brief overview of the findings of this report. Chapter 1 provides the background and scope of
work. Chapter 2 covers the chemical composition of the crumb rubber infill and develops a list
of chemicals of potential concern (COPCs). Chapter 3 covers the potential for exposure to and
human health effects from the COPCs. Chapter 4 is a review of the physical health effects
associatedwith synthetic turf systems, including the risks for physical injury, heat -related illness,
burns and infections with Methicillin-ResistantStaphylococcus Aureus (MRSA). Chapter 5 lists
benefits associated with using synthetic turf fields. Chapter 6 provides recommendations for the
crumb rubber industry and synthetic turf field operators. A summary of the reviewed articles is
included as an appendix under the relevant section headings.
2. General Findings
Components cf CrumbRubber
The crumb rubber used in synthetic turf systems is made primarily from recycled waste
tires. The tires themselves contain several COPCs, and undergo minimal processing to become
crumb rubber. Direct and indirect methods have been used in studies to determine the presence
of these COPCs in the crumb rubber. These studies have found polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOCs), benzothiazole, and certain metals. Studies have also identified phthalates,
alkylphenols and benzene, which likely become bonded to tires during their use. Direct analyses
confirming the presence of these COPCs in crumb rubber have used vigorous extraction
methods. Some COPCs have been identified through indirect methods including analysis of
leachate in the environment near where recycled tire products were used or in controlled
laboratory studies. Because crumb rubber is a recycled material, the presence and concentrations
of COPCs is expected to vary between products and even among batches from the same
manufacturer.
Potential Health and Safety Risks Associated with Synthetic Rzr ields
For the COPCs in the crumb rubber to be a health concern for users of the fields, users
would have to be exposed to high enough concentrations to increase the risk for health effects.
The three possible routes of exposure for COPCs from crumb rubber are inhalation, ingestion,
ES -2
and dermal absorption. Crumb rubber, or the dust generated from crumb rubber, may be
accidentally ingested by placing fingers in the mouth or not washing hands before eating and
after playing on the fields. Young children on the fields may eat the crumb rubber itself Dust
may be breathed in from playing on the field, or vapors that volatilize from the turf may also be
inhaled. Some COPCs may also be absorbed through the skin by direct contact.
To date, eleven human health risk assessments were identified that evaluated exposure to
the constituents in crumb rubber. Although each risk assessment was conducted using distinct
assumptions and evaluated different concentrations of COPCs in crumb rubber, all had a similar
conclusion: exposure to COPCs from the crumb rubber may occur, however the degree of
exposure is likely to be too small through ingestion, dermal or inhalation to increase the risk for
any health effect. These risk assessments have been conducted primarily by state agencies,
consultants and industry groups. They are based upon quantitative measurement of the
chemicals from various forms of tires (scrap tire, shreds, tire crumb rubber, recycled tire
flooring, etc) with levels derived from leachate studies or ambient air testing. Risk assessments
evaluating oral and dermal exposures used these surrogate concentrations for exposure and a
number of assumptions pertaining to ingestion rates, dermal contact rates, bioavailability, etc.
Thus, these evaluations are theoretical estimates of exposure and risk. However, the highest
available concentrations combined with scenarios which overestimated the duration of the
exposure make these risk assessments conservative. Similar to the oral and dermal risk
assessments, each of the inhalation risk assessments used conservative estimates of exposure and
maximum concentrations of indoor air contaminants.
Children, especially very young children, have many characteristics which make them
uniquely vulnerable to environmental exposures. Children breathe more air per pound of body
weight than adults in the same environment and physical activity adds an additional factor to
exposure through inhalation. Children also engage in hand-to-mouth behavior and very young
children may eat nonfood items, such as rubber crumbs while on the fields. The protective
keratinized layer of the skin is not as well developed in children and increases dermal absorption
of COPCs as well as increasing evaporative loss of water on hot days. Children also have many
more years to develop diseases with long latency periods after exposure. Risk assessments
looking at inhalation, ingestion, dermal absorption and the risk for heat stress would have to
combine these considerations to be as conservative as possible. It appears that these
considerations were addressed by the reviewed health risk assessments. However, uncertainties
ES -3
exist in the magnitude of factors to account for children's increased susceptibility. As our
understanding of the impact of low-level environmental exposures during childhood increases,
the inclusion of new data in future risk assessments may be warranted.
Due to the distinct physical characteristics of synthetic turf systems, there has also been
concern over potential adverse health effects not related to chemical exposure. The potential
physical health effects associated with synthetic t-irf systems include heat -related illnesses,
burns, injuries and infections.
Heat -Related Illness - Synthetic turf fields with crumb rubber have heat -absorbing
properties and can retain elevated temperatures at their surface. This increase in
temperature of the turf system may increase the risk of heat -related illness among field
users.
Physical Iniuries - Concerns over the potential for increased injuries associated with the
use of synthetic tLirE systems have led to a number of studies among athletes to evaluate
any differences in injury rates, injury types, and lost time between synthetic and natural
turf materials. These studies have shown either no major differences in the incidence,
severity, nature or cause of injuries sustained on natural grass or synthetic turf by men or
women, or that injury rates are similar but that the type of injury varies between the two
surfaces.
Bacterial Infections - Concerns have been raised over the potential for bacterial
infections, such as MRSA infections, to occur in athletes playing on synthetic turf.
Studies among school and professional athletes have shown that although synthetic turf
abrasions provide a means of access for infections, transmission of infection occurs via
physical contact, sharing of equipment, and poor sanitary practices. Another study found
that synthetic turf systems are not a hospitable environment for microbial activity.
However, an increased number of abrasion injuries could increase the risk of various
infections if other safeguards aren't maintained.
3. Data Gaps and Recommendations
Certain knowledge gaps associated with exposure to synthetic turf fields have been
identified. Highlighted gaps, and recommendations to address them, are listed below:
Gap: Consistent test methods for determining the chemicals in crumb rubber made from
different source materials and from differentprocessing techniques.
Recommendation: The crumb rubber industry should provide information on the COPC
content ofproducts and documentation on the testing methods and criteria used to
identify COPCs. Consistent and validated testing methods should be establishedthrough
an objective process and complied with by the industry. This information, along with the
heat absorption and injury properties of synthetic t -if, should be provided to prospective
buyers.
ES -4
Gap: Outdoor air concentrations of COPCs on both newly installed and older synthetic
turf fields. Most of the data generated have been from indoor synthetic tzf facilities.
Recommendation: Field operators should measure air concentrations of COPCs and
particulate matter above outdoor fields to give more representative data related to use of
playing fields in urban parks. Measurements taken on a hot, calm (no wind) day would
represent a worst case scenario.
Gap: Background air concentrations of COPCs in New York City. Many of the COPCs
found in crumb rubber are also present in the urban environment, but there is little
available data on background levels of these COPCs.
Recommendation: When conducting air studies over fields with crumb rubber, air
measurements should also be taken simultaneously at nearby off -field sites, as well as on
natural and/or asphalt fields, to provide comparative data on exposures related to urban
environments.
Additional Recommendations:
Heat: The primary health concern with the use of synthetic turf fields is the potential for
causing physical health effects associated with heat stress and dehydration. It is
recommended that field operators assess the feasibility of adding shaded areas and easy
access to drinking water near playing fields. It is also recommended that field operators
educate field management staff, coaches and athletic staff, field users, and parents on the
potential for heat -related illnesses, and how to recognize and prevent heat -related
symptoms and illness.
Purchasing Protocol: Field operators should adopt protocols for selecting and purchasing
synthetic turf and crumb rubber products. Such protocols should include requirements
for suppliers and manufacturers to provide available information on: chemical content of
products, potential COPC emissions from products over time, heat absorbency
characteristics, injury factors and other relevant health and safety information. In
addition, protocols should provide for the continuous evaluation of new technologies,
health and safety factors, and best practices for use and maintenance of synthetic turf
fields.
4. Conclusions
This comprehensive review of the available literature on the potential health effects of
crumb rubber infill from synthetic turf fields has demonstrated that the major health concern
from these fields is related to heat. COPC concentrations from the crumb rubber vary depending
on the type of crumb rubber, the method of extraction used for analysis, and the media measured
(crumb rubber, air, leachate). Eleven different risk assessments applied various available
concentrations of COPCs and none identified an increased risk for human health effects as a
result of ingestion, dermal or inhalation exposure to crumb rubber. However, additional air
studies at synthetic turf fields as well as background air measurements would provide more
ES -5
representative data for potential exposures related to synthetic field use in NYC, particularly
among younger field users.
ES -6
CPSC 8>Mnds Synthetic TurfFields OK to kstall, OK to Play On http://www.cpse.gov/cpsepub/prerel/prhtm108/08348.htm
NEWS from CPSC
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Office of Information and Public Affairs
Washington, DC 20207
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CPSC Hotline: (800) 638-2772
July 30,2008 CPSC Media Contacts: (301) 504-7908
Release #08-348
CPSC Staff Finds Synthetic Turf Fields OK to Install, OK to
Play On
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) staff today released its evaluation (pdf)
of various synthetic athletic fields. The evaluation concludes that young children are not at risk from exposure to lead in
these fields.
CPSC staff evaluation showed that newer fields had no lead or generally had the lowest lead levels. Although small
amounts of lead were detected on the surface of some older fields, none cf these tested fields released amounts cf lead
that would be harmfulto children.
Lead is present in the pigments of some synthetic turf products to give the turf its various colors. Staff recognizes that
some conditions such as age, weathering, exposure to sunlight, and wear and tear might change the amount of lead that
could be released from the turf. As turf is used during athletics or play and exposed over time to sunlight, heat and other
weather conditions, the surface of the turf may start to become worn and small particles of the lead -containing synthetic
grass fibers might be released. The staff considered in the evaluation that particles on a child's hand transferred to
his/her mouth would be the most likely route of exposure and determined young children would not be at risk.
Although this evaluation found no harmful lead levels, CPSC staff is asking that voluntary standards be developed for
synthetic turf to preclude the use of lead in future products. This action is being taken proactivelyto address any future
production of synthetic turf and to set a standard for any new entrants to the market to follow.
As an overall guideline, CPSC staff recommends young children wash their hands after playing outside, especially before
eating.
Consumers can also view a video clip (transcript) about lead and synthetic turf. This is in "streaming video" format.
Send the link for this page to a friend! The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the
public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from thousands of types of consumer products underthe
agency's jurisdiction. The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire,
electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard. The CPSC's work to ensure the safety of consumer products - such as toys,
cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals - contributed significantly to the decline in the rate of
deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over the past 30 years.
To report a dangerous product or a product -related injury, call CPSC's Hotline at (800)638-2772 or CPSC's
teletypewriter at (800)638-8270.To join a CPSC e-mail subscription list, please go to httr)s://www.cosc.gov
/cosclist.a-sox. Consumers can obtain recall and general safety information by logging on to CPSC's Web site at
1 of2 08/05/2008:53 )
975
Risk of injury in elite football played on artificial turf
versus natural grass: a prospective two -cohort study
�� ST
J Ekstiand, T Timpka, M Hagglund fi JUNE
...............................................................................................................................
Br J Sports Med2006;40:975-980. da: 10.1136/6ism.2006.027623
rass is the traditional surface for football matches and
training, but many regions in the world have a climate
that makes development of adequate natural grass
pitches difficult. Furthermore, modem specially designed
football stadiums have a roof under which grass pitches do
not thrive.
The use of artificial football pitches has been put forward
as a solution to these problems.' A comparison between first -
generation artificial turf and natural grass pitches revealed
that the utility of artificial pitches was 12 times greater than
grass pitches and the maintenance costs only 15 %.2 However,
playing football on first and second generation artificial turf
has the disadvantage of a distorted bounce and roll of the ball
and a there was concern that the risk of injury was greater.
Renstrom et all reported results from a 2 -year study in
Sweden in 1975 when the first artificial surface was
introduced. They observed that football played on artificial
turf in cleated boots increased the rate of injury. Engebretsen
and Kase' studied 16teams over a 2 -year period in Norway in
the 1980s. They found 30 injuries/1000 match hours on
artificial turf compared with 20 injuries/1000 hours on grass;
the difference was not statistically significant probably
because of small numbers. Similar results were reported by
Hort` in the 1970s: more overuse injuries were found when
football was played on artificial turf compared with natural
grass. However, these two studies were too small for the
results to reach statistical significance. In 1991, Arnason et all
investigated the risk of injury in Icelandic elite football. They
found a significantly higher injury risk on artificial turf than
on natural grass (25 v 10 injuries/1000 hours of exposure,
p<0.01). The relationship between artificial surfaces and a
greater risk of injury, however, is poorly documented because
the few studies reported have been small with methodolo-
gical limitations.
The negative experience with first -generation artificial
surfaces led to the development of improved artificial turf
especially designed for football with playing characteristics
similar to natural grass. Third -generation artificial turf
pitches were introduced in the late 1990s, made of long
(>40 mm) and much more widely spread fibres of poly-
propylene or polyethylene filled with rubber granules. The
use of the term "football turf' instead of "artificial or
synthetic turf of the 3rd generation" is the official terminol-
ogy chosen by FIFA and UEFA for artificial turf most suitable
for football based on test criteria identical with those of the
best natural turf.
Positive preliminary experience from youth tournaments
encouraged FIFA to allow internationalmatches to be played
on these new surfaces.' However, no studies have evaluated
injury risk when elite football is played on football turf. The
aim of this study was to examine the injury risk associated
with playing elite football on artificial turf compared with
natural grass. On the basis of experience from studies on
previous generation artificial turfs, our hypothesis was that
injury risk is higher when football is played on artificial turf
than when it is played on natural grass.
METHODS
A prospective two -cohort design was used for the study
(fig 1). Male players from 10 elite European football clubs
that had reported the installation of football turf (third -
generation artificial turf) to UEFA during the 2003-4 season
constituted the study cohort. UEFA defines elite level as the
two highest national football league divisions. Intra -cohort
differences in injury incidence on football turf and grass were
used to assess the effect of the playing surface. To adjust for
any home ground effect and to further evaluate the impact of
the playing surface, the Swedish teams in the artificial turf
cohort were also compared with a control cohort consisting of
the players from Swedish Premier League clubs playing their
home matches on grass.
www.bisportmed.com
Objective: To compare injury risk in elite football played on artificial turf comparedwith natural grass.
Design: Prospectivetwo-cohortstudy.
Setting: Male European elite football leagues.
Participants: 290 players from 10 elite European dubs that had installed third -generation artificial turf
surfaces in 2003-4, and 202 players from the Swedish Premier League acting as a control group.
See end of article for
Main outcome measure: Injury incidence.
auhors' affiliations
Results:The incidence of injury during training and match play did not differ between surfaces fol- the
"""'--"--"--"--"
teams in the artificial turf cohort: 2.42 v 2.94 injuries/1000 training hours and 19.60 v 21.48 injuries/
to trx
1000 match hours for artificial turf and grass respectively. The risk of ankle sprain was increased in
Professor Po its
Clinic, Solsfigen 3, S-589
matdies on artificial turf compared with grass (4.83 v 2.66 injuries/ 1000 match hours; rate ratio 1.81,
43, Unkopin , Sweden;
95% confidence interval 1.00 to 3.28). No difference in injury severity was seen between surfaces.
ion.ekstrandWia.com
Compared with the control cohort who played home games on natural grass, learns in the artificial turf
cohort had a lower injury incidence during match play (15.26 v 23.08 injuries/1000 match hours; rate
2006
Published Online First
ratio 0. 66, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.91).
Conclusions: No evidenced a greater risk of injurywas 1burld when football was played on artificialturf
21 September 2006
compared with natural grass. The higher incidence of ankle sprain on artificial turf warrants further
.......................
attention, although this result should be interpretedwith caution as the numberof ankle sprains was low.
rass is the traditional surface for football matches and
training, but many regions in the world have a climate
that makes development of adequate natural grass
pitches difficult. Furthermore, modem specially designed
football stadiums have a roof under which grass pitches do
not thrive.
The use of artificial football pitches has been put forward
as a solution to these problems.' A comparison between first -
generation artificial turf and natural grass pitches revealed
that the utility of artificial pitches was 12 times greater than
grass pitches and the maintenance costs only 15 %.2 However,
playing football on first and second generation artificial turf
has the disadvantage of a distorted bounce and roll of the ball
and a there was concern that the risk of injury was greater.
Renstrom et all reported results from a 2 -year study in
Sweden in 1975 when the first artificial surface was
introduced. They observed that football played on artificial
turf in cleated boots increased the rate of injury. Engebretsen
and Kase' studied 16teams over a 2 -year period in Norway in
the 1980s. They found 30 injuries/1000 match hours on
artificial turf compared with 20 injuries/1000 hours on grass;
the difference was not statistically significant probably
because of small numbers. Similar results were reported by
Hort` in the 1970s: more overuse injuries were found when
football was played on artificial turf compared with natural
grass. However, these two studies were too small for the
results to reach statistical significance. In 1991, Arnason et all
investigated the risk of injury in Icelandic elite football. They
found a significantly higher injury risk on artificial turf than
on natural grass (25 v 10 injuries/1000 hours of exposure,
p<0.01). The relationship between artificial surfaces and a
greater risk of injury, however, is poorly documented because
the few studies reported have been small with methodolo-
gical limitations.
The negative experience with first -generation artificial
surfaces led to the development of improved artificial turf
especially designed for football with playing characteristics
similar to natural grass. Third -generation artificial turf
pitches were introduced in the late 1990s, made of long
(>40 mm) and much more widely spread fibres of poly-
propylene or polyethylene filled with rubber granules. The
use of the term "football turf' instead of "artificial or
synthetic turf of the 3rd generation" is the official terminol-
ogy chosen by FIFA and UEFA for artificial turf most suitable
for football based on test criteria identical with those of the
best natural turf.
Positive preliminary experience from youth tournaments
encouraged FIFA to allow internationalmatches to be played
on these new surfaces.' However, no studies have evaluated
injury risk when elite football is played on football turf. The
aim of this study was to examine the injury risk associated
with playing elite football on artificial turf compared with
natural grass. On the basis of experience from studies on
previous generation artificial turfs, our hypothesis was that
injury risk is higher when football is played on artificial turf
than when it is played on natural grass.
METHODS
A prospective two -cohort design was used for the study
(fig 1). Male players from 10 elite European football clubs
that had reported the installation of football turf (third -
generation artificial turf) to UEFA during the 2003-4 season
constituted the study cohort. UEFA defines elite level as the
two highest national football league divisions. Intra -cohort
differences in injury incidence on football turf and grass were
used to assess the effect of the playing surface. To adjust for
any home ground effect and to further evaluate the impact of
the playing surface, the Swedish teams in the artificial turf
cohort were also compared with a control cohort consisting of
the players from Swedish Premier League clubs playing their
home matches on grass.
www.bisportmed.com
Downloaded from blsm.bml.com on 30 May 2008
i20
Comparison of the incidence, nature and cause of in tmies
sustained on grass and new generation artificial turf male
and female football players. Part 1 : match injuries
Colin W Fuller, Randall W Dick, .fill Corlette, Rosemary Schmalz
Br Sports Med 2007;41(Suppl 1):i20 -i26. doi: 10.1136/6jsm.2007.037267
There is growing interest, at all levels of football, in new
generation artificial turf surfaces that use synthetic infill
materials.' This interest has developed for several reasons.
First, the surfaces closely reflect the performance characteristics
of grass, which led the Fdefation Internationale de Football
Association (FIFA) to approve their use for all matches?
Second, artificial turf surfaces have benefits compared with
grass in situations where the climatic conditions are unsuitable
for the installation and maintenance of good quality year-round
grass pitches and where pitches have a high use requirement.'
Third, modem football stadiums, which are designed to deliver
improved spectator facilities, do not always provide the ideal
growing conditions for grass.' Despite the advantages and
although many football teams use them to provide year-round,
all-weather training facilities, acceptance of artificial turf
surfaces for match play by elite professional teams has been
limited because of negative opinions related to older types of
artificial turf and the continuing perception that more injuries
occur on artificial turf than on grass. Therefore, before new
generation artificial turf surfaces will achieve wider acceptance
within football, it is essential to compare the incidence,
severity, nature and cause cf injuries sustained on artificial
turf with injuries sustained on grass.
Comparative data about the incidence and nature of match
injuries sustained on artificial turf and grass in football are
limited' and the available information is restricted mainly to
elite male players. Ekstrand and Nigg' reviewed the effect of
artificial turf on football injuries and suggested that abrasion
injuries were more common on artificial turf than on grass.
www.bisportmed.com
kmason et al' reported that the incidence cf match injuries
among elite male Icelandic footballers playing on older types of
artificial turf was twice the level recorded on grass surfaces
(p<0.01); however, match and training exposures were
combined for this comparison so it was not possible to
determine the contribution to this increased risk from match
exposures alone. Ekstrand et all on the other hand, reported
that there was no significant difference between the overall
incidence of match injuries sustained by elite male European
footballers using the new artificial turf and grass pitches,
although the incidence of ankle sprains on artificial turf was
almost twice and lower limb strains almost half that found on
grass (p<0.05). Studies within other football codes, such as
American Football, have identified a higher risk of lower
limb' ' head/neck,' muscle strain/spasm' and non-contact9
injuries on artificial turf surfaces than on grass. However,
Meyers et al' reported lower incidences of concussion and
ligament tears on artificial turf compared with grass. Higher
incidences of lower limb injuries on playing surfaces are usually
linked to increased surface hardness or shoe -surface traction,"
which were factors associated with the older style artificial turf
surfaces.
Preliminary epidemiological data from trials of the new
generation artificial turf surfaces during the FIFA U-17 men's
world cup football tournaments in 2003 and 2005 indicated
.........................................................
Abbreviations: FFq F6d6ration Internationale de Football Association;
ISS, Injury SurveillanoeSystrn; NCAA, National CollegiateAlhletic
Association
Objective: To compare the incidence, nature, severity and cause of match injuries sustained on grass and new
generation artificial turf by male and female footballers.
Methods: The National CollegiateAthletic Association Injury Surveillance Sys was used for a two -season
.
(Augustto December) prospectivestudy of American college and university(ootball teams (2005 season: men
52teams, women 64teams; 2006 season: men54 teams, women 72teams). Injurydefinitionsand recording
procedureswere compliantwith the intemationalconsensus statementfor epidemiological studiesof injuries
in football. Athletic trainers recorded details of the playing surface and the location, diagnosis, severity and
cause of all match injuries. The number of days lost from training and match play was used to define the
severity of an injury. Match exposures (player hours)were recorded on a team basis.
Results: The overal incidence of match injuries for men was 25.43 injuries/ 1000 player hours on artificial
turf and 23.92 on grass (incidence ratio 1.06; p=0.46) and for women was 19.15 injuries/ 1000 player
hours on artificial turf and 21.79 on grass (incidence ratio =0.88; p=0.16). For men, the mean severity of
See end a` article for
non-seasonending injuries was 7.1 days (median 5) on artificial turf and 8.4 days (median 5) on grass and,
authors' affiliations
for women, 11.2 days (median 5) on artificial turf and 8.9 days (median 5) on grass. Joint (non -bone)/
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
ligament/cartilage and contusion injuries to the lower limbs were the most common general categories of
Com�sporxlerioeto:
match injury on artificial turf and grass for both male and female players. Most injuries were acute (men:
Colin Fuller, Universilyof
artificial turf 24.60, grass 22.91; p=0.40; women: artificial turf 18.29, grass 20.64; p=0.21) and resulted
Ncitingham, LK colin,
bller nottingham.ac.uk
from player -to -player contact (men: artificial turf 14.73, grass 13.34; p=0.37; women: artificial turf 10.72;
grass 11.68; p-0.50).
Accepted 12 Jane 2007
Conclusions: There were no major differences in the incidence, severity, nature or cause of match injuries
........................
sustained on new generation artificial turf and grass by either male cr female players.
There is growing interest, at all levels of football, in new
generation artificial turf surfaces that use synthetic infill
materials.' This interest has developed for several reasons.
First, the surfaces closely reflect the performance characteristics
of grass, which led the Fdefation Internationale de Football
Association (FIFA) to approve their use for all matches?
Second, artificial turf surfaces have benefits compared with
grass in situations where the climatic conditions are unsuitable
for the installation and maintenance of good quality year-round
grass pitches and where pitches have a high use requirement.'
Third, modem football stadiums, which are designed to deliver
improved spectator facilities, do not always provide the ideal
growing conditions for grass.' Despite the advantages and
although many football teams use them to provide year-round,
all-weather training facilities, acceptance of artificial turf
surfaces for match play by elite professional teams has been
limited because of negative opinions related to older types of
artificial turf and the continuing perception that more injuries
occur on artificial turf than on grass. Therefore, before new
generation artificial turf surfaces will achieve wider acceptance
within football, it is essential to compare the incidence,
severity, nature and cause cf injuries sustained on artificial
turf with injuries sustained on grass.
Comparative data about the incidence and nature of match
injuries sustained on artificial turf and grass in football are
limited' and the available information is restricted mainly to
elite male players. Ekstrand and Nigg' reviewed the effect of
artificial turf on football injuries and suggested that abrasion
injuries were more common on artificial turf than on grass.
www.bisportmed.com
kmason et al' reported that the incidence cf match injuries
among elite male Icelandic footballers playing on older types of
artificial turf was twice the level recorded on grass surfaces
(p<0.01); however, match and training exposures were
combined for this comparison so it was not possible to
determine the contribution to this increased risk from match
exposures alone. Ekstrand et all on the other hand, reported
that there was no significant difference between the overall
incidence of match injuries sustained by elite male European
footballers using the new artificial turf and grass pitches,
although the incidence of ankle sprains on artificial turf was
almost twice and lower limb strains almost half that found on
grass (p<0.05). Studies within other football codes, such as
American Football, have identified a higher risk of lower
limb' ' head/neck,' muscle strain/spasm' and non-contact9
injuries on artificial turf surfaces than on grass. However,
Meyers et al' reported lower incidences of concussion and
ligament tears on artificial turf compared with grass. Higher
incidences of lower limb injuries on playing surfaces are usually
linked to increased surface hardness or shoe -surface traction,"
which were factors associated with the older style artificial turf
surfaces.
Preliminary epidemiological data from trials of the new
generation artificial turf surfaces during the FIFA U-17 men's
world cup football tournaments in 2003 and 2005 indicated
.........................................................
Abbreviations: FFq F6d6ration Internationale de Football Association;
ISS, Injury SurveillanoeSystrn; NCAA, National CollegiateAlhletic
Association
Incidence, Causes, and Severity
of High School Football Injuries on
FieldTurf Versus Natural Grass
A 5 -Year Prospective Study
Michael C. Meyers,*1 PhD, FACSM, and Bill S. Barnhill,* MD
From the tHuman Performance Research Center, West TexasA&M University, Canyon, Texas,
and *Panhandle Sports Medicine Associates, Amarillo, Texas
Background: Numerous injuries have been attributed to playing on artificial turf. Recently, FieldTurf was developed to duplicate
the playing characteristicsof natural grass. No long-term study has been conducted comparing game -related, high school foot-
ball injuries between the playing surfaces.
Hypothesis: High school athletes would not experience any difference in the incidence, causes, and severity of game -related
injuries between FieldTurf and natural grass.
Study Design: Prospective cohort study.
Methods: A total of 8 high schoolswere evaluated over 5 competitive seasons for injury incidence, injury category, time of injury,
injury time loss, player position, injury mechanism, primary type of injury, grade and anatomical location of injury, type of tissue
injured, head and knee trauma, and environmental factors.
Results: Findings per 10 team games indicated total injury incidence rates of 15.2 (95% confidence interval, 13.7-16.4) versus
13.9 (95% confidence interval, 11.9-15.6). Minor injury incidence rates of 12.1 (95% confidence interval, 10.5-13.6) versus 10.7
(95% confidence interval, 8.7-12.7), substantial injury incidence rates of 1.9 (95% confidence interval, 1.4-2.6) versus 1.3 (95%
confidence interval, 0.8-2.1), and severe injury incidence rates of 1.1 (95% confidence interval, 0.7-1.7) versus 1.9 (95% confi-
dence interval 1.2-2.8) were documented on FieldTurf versus natural grass, respectively. Multivariate analyses indicated signifi-
cant playing surface effects by injurytime loss, injury mechanism, anatomical location of injury, and type of tissue injured. Higher
incidences of 0 -day time loss injuries, noncontact injuries, surface/epidermal injuries, muscle-relatedtrauma, and injuries dur-
ing higher temperatures were reported on FieldTurf. Higher incidences of 1- to 2 -day time loss injuries, 22+ days time loss
injuries, head and neural trauma, and ligament injuries were reported on natural grass.
Conclusions: Although similarities existed between FieldTurf and natural grass over a 5 -year period of competitive play, both
surfaces also exhibited unique injury patterns that warrant further investigation.
Keywords: artificial surface; knee: head; adolescent; environment
Over the past decades, numerous studies have attributed
a greater risk and incidence of articular and concussive
trauma to ?la7f on artificial turf when compared to nat-
ural grass. lo,aa,a ,aa,a6,66,60 More recently, a new generation
'Address correspondence to Michael C. Meyers, PhD, FACSM,
Human Performance Research Center, Departmentof Sports& Exercise
Science, WTAMU Box 60216, West Texas A&M University, Canyon, TX
79016 (e-mail: mmeyers@mail.wtamu.edu).
One or more of the authors has declared a potential conflict of inter-
est as specified in the AJSM Conflict of Interest statement.
The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Vd. 32, No. 7
DOI: 10.1177/0363546504266978
® 2004 American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine
1626
of synthetic surface called FieldTurf, which is composed of
a polyethylenelpolypropylene fiber blend stabilized with a
graded silica sand and ground rubber infill, was developed
to duplicatethe playing characteristics of natural grass.
Although FieldTurf has been recommended as a viable
option to natural grass in the prevention of injuries,
research uheffects'
tionsove�anseduring actuatei sea8opi
competition, has not been published in the scientificliter-
ature. With more than 1 million athletes playing high
school fantball.0 the rising number and cost of knee sur-
geries and rehabilitation alone reaching more than $lbil-
lion each year, 16,22 coupled with the psychological trauma
and setbacks in training typically experienced by athletes
Risk of injury on artificial turf and natural grass in young
female football players
Kathrin Steffen, Thor Einar Andersen, Roald Bahr
Br J Sports Med2007,•000:1-6. doi: 10.1136/6ism.2007.036665
Background: Artificial turf is becoming increasinglypopular, although the risk of injuryon newer generations
r� most countries, football is traditionally played on natural
1grass. However, for climatic and economic reasons, artificial
111turf has become a popular alternative playing surface—for
example, in Scandinavia." Many pitches are being built,
although the risk of injury on artificial turfs is poorly
documented. Concerns have been raised that playing on
different surfaces and switching between turfs may lead to an
increased risk of injury in elite as well as in amateur football.'
The stiffness of the field surface, its quality and the friction
between the surface and shoe are key factors involved in
surface -related injuries.' ' Field stiffness affects impact forces
and can result in overload of tissues such as bone, cartilage,
muscle, tendon and ligament. Friction is necessary for rapid
starting, stopping, cutting and pivoting in football,'' but
injuries can result if friction is too high?
The first generation of synthetic turfs appeared in the mid
1970s.1' They had short, thin fibres and were characterised by
high stiffness and friction, leading to considerable differences
in ball behaviour compared with natural grass. Since then, turfs
have been developed with a sand filling, leading to reduced
friction and lower ball bounce. In the late 1980s, the second
generation of artificial turfs was introducedwith longer, thicker
fibres, better quality sand fillings and a rubber base under the
turf itself to reduce stiffness." These were the first turfs
designed specifically for football, however, their characteristics
still differed appreciably from that of natural grass. The risk of
injury was higher on these turfs.` " The third generation of
synthetic turfs was introduced in Norway in 2000, consisting of
even longer fibres ( 50-60 mm) and filled with siliceous sand
and rubber granules to mimic more closely the playing
characteristics of natural grass pitches."
Some studies on American and Canadian football suggest
that the incidence of major injuries and ligament sprains is
lower when playing on natural grass than on later generation
artificial turfs," `° whereas others have shown conflicting
SM36665 Module 1 Brush Journal of Sports Medicine 22/6/07 11:29:24
findings." However, American and Canadian football codes
differ considerably from European football in their playing
characteristics and injury mechanisms so it is not known
whether these results can be extrapolated to European football.
A recent study from Europe, which included the first data on
third generation artificial turfs, indicated that the risk cf injury
among professional male players is similar to that when playing
on natural grass.' The purpose cf this one -season prospective
cohort study was to examine the risk of injury on artificial turf
compared with natural grass among young female football
players.
METHODS
Study population
This study is based on data from a large randomised trial
comparing the risk of injury between an intervention group
receiving a training programme to prevent injuries and a
control group training as usual. The design, the intervention
programme and the results of the study have been described in
detail elsewhere." All teams (n= 157) in the southeast regions
of Norway registered to participate in the U-17league system in
the 2005 season were invited to take part in the study and 113
teams accepted. The competitive season lasted from the end of
April until mid-October. There was a seven -week summer break
with no regular league matches but some invitational tourna-
ments. The teams were also followed for two months of the
preseason period (March -April). Throughout the competitive
season, the teams played 14-24 league matches and trained one
to three times a week.
Before the start of the preseason, the players were given
written and verbal information about the study, and it was
emphasised that participation was voluntary. The regional
committee for research ethics approved the study, and written
consent was obtained. A player was enrolled if she was
registered by the team as participating in the U-17 league
www.bisportmed.com
Topics:
of turf is unknown.
Aim: To investigate the risk of injury on artificial turf compared with natural grass among young female
football players.
See ext of article for
Shit design: Prospective cohort study.
authors' affiliationsMethods:
2020 players from 109 teams (mean (SD) 15.4 (0.8)years) participated in the study during the
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
2005 football season. Time -loss injuries and exposure data on different types of turf were recorded over an
ttx
Kathrin Steffen, Oslo Sports
Com;
eight-month period.
Results: 421 (21%) players sustained 526 injuries, leading to an injury incidence of 3.7/1000 playing hours
Trauma Research
(959/.CI 3.4 to 4.0). The incldenoeof acute injuries on artificial turf and grass did not differ significantly with
Departmentof Sports
1Vcxweglan
respectto match injudes(rateratio (RR) 1.0, 950/60 0.8 to 1.3, p=0.72) or training injudes(RR 1.0,950/60
0.6 1.5, 0.93 In incldenceof injurieswas higheron
School o Sport sciences, FO
to P= )• , the serious significantly artificial turf (RR
Box4014Ulleval Stadion,
20, 95% CI 1.3 to 3Z p=0.03). Ankle sprain was the most common type of injury (34% of all acute
0806 Oslo 1Vorway,
kathrin.stef(en@nih%
injuries), and there was a trend towards more ankle sprains on artificial turf than on grass (RR 1.5, 95% Cl
1.0 to 22; p=0.06).
Acoe*d 14 May 2007
Conclusion: In the present study among young female football players, the overall risk of acute injurieswas
........................
similar between artificial turf and natural grass.
r� most countries, football is traditionally played on natural
1grass. However, for climatic and economic reasons, artificial
111turf has become a popular alternative playing surface—for
example, in Scandinavia." Many pitches are being built,
although the risk of injury on artificial turfs is poorly
documented. Concerns have been raised that playing on
different surfaces and switching between turfs may lead to an
increased risk of injury in elite as well as in amateur football.'
The stiffness of the field surface, its quality and the friction
between the surface and shoe are key factors involved in
surface -related injuries.' ' Field stiffness affects impact forces
and can result in overload of tissues such as bone, cartilage,
muscle, tendon and ligament. Friction is necessary for rapid
starting, stopping, cutting and pivoting in football,'' but
injuries can result if friction is too high?
The first generation of synthetic turfs appeared in the mid
1970s.1' They had short, thin fibres and were characterised by
high stiffness and friction, leading to considerable differences
in ball behaviour compared with natural grass. Since then, turfs
have been developed with a sand filling, leading to reduced
friction and lower ball bounce. In the late 1980s, the second
generation of artificial turfs was introducedwith longer, thicker
fibres, better quality sand fillings and a rubber base under the
turf itself to reduce stiffness." These were the first turfs
designed specifically for football, however, their characteristics
still differed appreciably from that of natural grass. The risk of
injury was higher on these turfs.` " The third generation of
synthetic turfs was introduced in Norway in 2000, consisting of
even longer fibres ( 50-60 mm) and filled with siliceous sand
and rubber granules to mimic more closely the playing
characteristics of natural grass pitches."
Some studies on American and Canadian football suggest
that the incidence of major injuries and ligament sprains is
lower when playing on natural grass than on later generation
artificial turfs," `° whereas others have shown conflicting
SM36665 Module 1 Brush Journal of Sports Medicine 22/6/07 11:29:24
findings." However, American and Canadian football codes
differ considerably from European football in their playing
characteristics and injury mechanisms so it is not known
whether these results can be extrapolated to European football.
A recent study from Europe, which included the first data on
third generation artificial turfs, indicated that the risk cf injury
among professional male players is similar to that when playing
on natural grass.' The purpose cf this one -season prospective
cohort study was to examine the risk of injury on artificial turf
compared with natural grass among young female football
players.
METHODS
Study population
This study is based on data from a large randomised trial
comparing the risk of injury between an intervention group
receiving a training programme to prevent injuries and a
control group training as usual. The design, the intervention
programme and the results of the study have been described in
detail elsewhere." All teams (n= 157) in the southeast regions
of Norway registered to participate in the U-17league system in
the 2005 season were invited to take part in the study and 113
teams accepted. The competitive season lasted from the end of
April until mid-October. There was a seven -week summer break
with no regular league matches but some invitational tourna-
ments. The teams were also followed for two months of the
preseason period (March -April). Throughout the competitive
season, the teams played 14-24 league matches and trained one
to three times a week.
Before the start of the preseason, the players were given
written and verbal information about the study, and it was
emphasised that participation was voluntary. The regional
committee for research ethics approved the study, and written
consent was obtained. A player was enrolled if she was
registered by the team as participating in the U-17 league
www.bisportmed.com
Topics:
HOW SAFE ARE THE NEW ARTIFICIALF
i
Jay H. Williams, Ph.D.
Department of Human Nutrition, Foods and Exercise
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24060
Shortly after the opening of the Houston Astrodome in 1965, turfgrass specialists realized
the difficulty of growing natural grass indoors. The solution was the introduction of Astro-
turf. Astroturf was developed as a short -pile carpet with pad laid over a concrete surface.
The advantage for the stadium owners was the very low maintenance costs. However, since
its introduction many coaches, players and administrators have complained that artificial
turf leads to a greater number of injuries. They feel that increased friction found with As-
troturftype fields leads to increased knee injuries. They also feel that the hardness of the
Astroturf surface causes more head injures, especially concussions. As a result, many fa-
cilities soon removed the Astroturf fields and replaced them with natural grass.
---- -- In 2000,"3rd generation" or synthetic infill artificial playing surfaces were introduced (e.g.
FieldTurf,AstroPlay, Sprinturf, NexTuro, They are designed with long "grass" fibers infiltrated with crushed rubber or -
sand. The fiber base is laid over a pad, crushed stone and a drainage system. These new surfaces are designed specifically
to reduce friction, lower impact forces and increase water drainage. Thus the manufacturers of these surfaces advertise
that they are far safer than the old Astroturftype fields and, in some cases may be safer than natural grass.
Since their introduction in 2000, the number of facilities using these playing surfaceshas increased
dramatically. Currently more than 22 Dvision-1 college football teams use FieldTurf and numerous
high schools and recreation departments are installing game and practice facilities that include sur-
faces such as FieldTurf and Sprinturf, to name a few. In addition, several professional organizations
have approved FieldTurf for use in competition (NLF, CFL, FIFA, MLB). Given the popularity of
these fields and the product claims, an important question that needs to be addressed is "are the new
3rd generation artificial turf fields are actually safe for athletes?"
POTENTIAL FOR INJURY
A major criticism of Astroturftype fields is that their "hardness" raises the potential for head injures
[2]. Concussions often result from the head making contact with the playing surface, the head bounc-
ing off of the field, so to speak. A recent study [3] found that impact forces measured on FieldTurf are slightly lower than
those recorded on grass or AstroTurf. The Head Injury Criterion (HIC, an indicator of potential injury) values for both
FieldTurf and grass were both below the score consideredto be the threshold for injury and well below that of Astroturf.
In cold climates, the HIC for the grass field markedly increased to more than 2.5 times greater than the threshold for injury
while FieldTurf remained low [4]. Thus, FieldTurf does not appear to increase the potential for head injury and may actu-
ally be beneficial in cold weather.
A second criticism of the Astroturf -type surfaces is the frictionbetween the cleat and the playing surface. When an athlete
plants his/her foot on Astroturf, the shoe often "sticks" to the Wd. This results in stress to the ankle and knee joints. This
rotational torque at the shoe surface is slightly greater when using cleats on FieldTurf and AstroPlay compared to grass [5].
However, the differences are relatively small and may not translate into injury risk. When athletes perform various start-
ing, stopping and cutting maneuvers on turf, different pressures are experienced on the foot compared to grass [6]. How-
ever, total pressure placed on the foot is similar on the two surfaces. Most importantly, knee joint stress during cutting
movements are slightly less when performed on 3rd generation turf than on grass [7] . This suggeststhat despite small dif-
ferences in torque and foot pressure, stress placed on the knee may be slightlyreduced when playing on artificial turf corn -
pared to grass.
When considering the shoe -surface interface, greater friction also in-
creases traction. This, in turn, reduces the risk for secondary injury
due to slips and falls. An additional consideration that is overlooked
in research studies is that artificial fields have a consistent surface.
Many grass fields have uneven patches characterized by ruts, divots
and bare spots that typically develop over the course of a season. Such
problems often develop during wet weather and when the grass field
lacks routine maintenance. These uneven surfaces lead to increased
risk for both major and minor ankle and knee injuries. Such potential
is nearly eliminated using the artificial turf fields.
Assessing injury potential for any playing surface is difficult. However, based on the available research, it
appears that the new, 3`d generation artificial turf fields do not raise an athlete's risk of head injury or in-
crease the potential for lower limb injury. Under some conditions, the new artificial turf fields may actu-
ally reduce the potential for head and j oint injury.
INJURY RATES
Despite that infill turf systems have been used widely for only a shorttime, there have been several important long
term studies which compare actual injury data between artificial and natural grass surfaces. However, three key stud-
ies were recently published that examine and compare football and soccer injuries that occurred on both surfaces.
Meyers and Barnhill [I] performed a five year study of Texas high school football and FieldTurf. The study fol-
lowed eight high schools that played games on grass and FieldTurf fields. Injuries were reported for a total of 240
games, 150 of which were played on FieldTurf and 90 played on grass. The investigators reported only injuries that
occurred during games. Total game -related injury rates were not different between the two field types. The authors
reported 15.2 injuries per 10 games for the FieldTurf and 13.8 for natural grass. Injuries to the head and knee were
also similar. However, there was a tendency for concussionsand ACL injury rates to be reduced on FieldTurf. It
should be pointed out that it is not clear if the concussions reported were due to helmet contact with the ground or
other object (i.e. hehnet-to-helmet). Likewise, it is not known if the ACL injuries resulted from contact or non -
contact events. The rates for minor injuries (those requiring <6 days of recovery) and substantial injuries (7-21 days)
were similar for the two field types. However, the rate of severe injury (22+ days) tended to be greater for the grass
than FieldTurf. Based on reports of actual injuries, the authors concludedthat there is no reason to suggestthat foot-
ball athletes playing on FieldTurf have increased injury risk as compared to playing on natural grass. In faf, there
are some indicationsthat the risk for certain injuries (e.g. ACL and concussion) may actually be reduced.
In a second study, Ekstrand et al. [8] followed 290 male soccer players flan European clubs. 3`d generation artificial
turf and grass fields were used by several clubs for both training and match play. The wal rate of injury was similar
when playing or training on the two surfaces. This held true for traumatic injuries to the ankle and knee. When com-
pared to teams that played and trained only on grass surfaces, injury rates between groups were nearly identical. The
investigators conclude that their study provided no evidence to indicate
greater injury risk playing on artificial tom. In fact, the data presented indi-
cate that rate of traumatic injury may be reduced on artificial surfaces.
The thiid study, Fuller et al, (9, 10] examined injures for soccer players
using the NCAA Injury Surveillance System. The injuries were recorded
for both male and female players during the 2005 and 2006 seasons. The
investigatorsfound that there were no differences in the rate, severity, na-
tm or cause of injuries sustained on new generation artificial turf and
grass. This held true for both male or female players playing during
matches and training.
Fburth, a Scandinavian study[ 113 revealed that female soccerplayers are
not a greater risk for injury when playing on the new artificial turf fields.
More than 2000 players were tracked over the course of the 2005 season
and it was found that while there was trend for more ankle injuries on turf,
the overall risk of acute injuries was similar between artificial turf and
natural grass.
Lastly, in a recent presentation', Dr. James Bradley (Head Team Physician for the Pittsburgh
Steelers and Clinical Associate Professor, University of Pittsburgh Medical College) reported
a marked reduction in ACL injuries during play on FieldTurf compared to grass. The data
were collected by the NFL Injury Surveillance System. Dr. Bradley reported that 82% of
ACL injuries occurring during practice happened on grass while only 181/6 occurred on Field -
Turf. During games, the injury rates were identical.
Based on the studiesthat examined injury data and the results presented by Dr. Bradley, there
is no reason to suggestthat the risk of injury is increased when an athlete plays or practices
on the new, Yd generation turf fields.
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available evidence, it appears that the potential and risk for injury is not increased for athletes
playing on 3`d generation artificial t-irf fields compared to grass fields. The potential for head or lower limb
injury is low and similar between turf and grass fields. Research indicates that the newer surfaces do not in-
crease injury risk for football or soccerplayers. In fact, some studies raise the possibility that the risk of some
types of injury might actually be reduced by using the new FieldTurf type surfaces. Clearly the new surfaces
are softer, provide more "give" than the older AstroTurf fields and may reduce the stress placed on the knee and
ankle.
Clearly more research is needed to fully verify these claims. More long term studies are needed to compare
injury rates on grass and artificial surfaces. More detailed information is also needed to examine specific inju-
ries that result from contact with the playing surface. Nevertheless, at this point, there is no reason to suggest
that new synthetic t-irffieldsraise an athletes risk for injury.
REFERENCES
1. Meyers, M.C. and B.S. Barnhill, Incidence, causes, and severity of high schoolfootball injuries on FieldTurf versus naturalgrass: a
5 -year prospective study. Am ScpoxtsMed, 2004, 32: 1626-1638.
2. Guskie�vicz, KM., et A, Epidemiology cf concussion in collegiate and high schoolfootballplayers. Am J SportsMed, 2000,28:
643-650.
3. Naunheim, R, H. Parrott, and J. Standeven,A comparisonof artifcial turf J Trauma, 2004, 57:1311.1314,
4. Naunheim, R, et al., Does the use cfartlftcial turfcontribute to head injuries?J Trauma, 2002, 53:691.694.
5. Livesay, GA ,D.R. Reda, and E.A. Nauman, Peak torque and rotationalstiffness developed at the shoe -surface interface: the effect
ofshoe type and playing surface. Am J Sports Med, 2006, 34:415.422.
6. Ford, KR, et al., Comparison cfin-shoefoot loadingpatternsonnaturalgrassandsyntheticturf.•J Sci Med Sport, 2006.
7. Blackburn, S., et al. Kneejoint movements duringsports activities on artifcial turf inProceedings cf theXXth Congress cf the Inter-
nationalSociety cf Biomechanics. 2006.
8. Ekstrand, J, T. Timpka, and M. Hagglund, The riskfor injury whenplaying elitefootball on artificial turfversus naturalgrass - a
prospective two-cohortstudy. Br Sports Med, 2006.40:975-980
9. Fuller, C.W., RW. Dick, J. Corlette and R. Schmalz. Comparisonof the incidence, nature and cause of injuriessustained ongrass
and new generation artifcial turf by male andfemalefootballplayers. Part 1: match injuries. Br J Sports Med, 2007, 41: 120.126.
10. Fuller, C.W., RW. Dick, J. Corlette and R. Schmalz. Comparison of the incidence, nature and cause of injuries sustained on grass
and new generation artificial turf by male andfemalefootballplayers. Part 2: training injuries. Br J Sports Med, 2007, 41: i27 -i32,
11. Steffen, K, T.E. Andersen and R Bahr. Risk of injury on artificialturf and natural grass in young female football players. Br J Scpmts
Med, 2007, 41: 133-i37.
"`Sports Medicine & Football: The 2006 Perspective," presented at the annual meeting of the American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine,
2006. 4 i
LODI HIGH SCHOOL
ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT
August 5,2009
City of Lodi Council Members:
I am writing to express my support to the City of Lodi for the installation of Field Turf at the Grape
Bowl. Providing an all-weather field will be a wonderful example of the commitmentby our city to
provide a first class facility to the community. I know the members of the council and recreation
department have researched all the aspects of the field and the impact it will have on the City of Lodi.
As the Athletic Director of Lodi High School, my first concern is always the safety and well-being of
our athletes. The quality of the playing surface is the biggest factor in providing a well maintained, safe,
and competitive field. There is no debate that field turf will provide a more stable, uniformed, and
consistent playing surface for all of the athletes, as well as give the Grape Bowl a much needed facelift
that all participants and fans will surely enjoy! Thank you for your time and efforts.
Sincerely,
Erin Aitken
Lodi High Athletic Director
Go Flames!
Principal: Bill Atterberry Athletic Director: Erin Aitken
3 South Pacific Avenue, Lodi, CA 95242
(209) 331-7666 Fax: (209) 331-7987
FW: $80,000 set aside for turf replacement Page 1 o f2
Randi Johl Vt 02M
Subject: FW: $80,000 set aside for turf replacement
From: Randi Johl
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 200910:15 AM
To: John E. Johnson, CFA
Cc: City Council; Blair King; Steve Schwabauer; Jeff Hood; James Rodems
Subject: RE: $80,000 set aside for turf replacement
Thank you for your email. It was received by the City Council and forwarded to the appropriate department(s) for
information, response and/or handling.
Randi Johl, City Clerk
From: John E. Johnson, CFA [mailto:john@johnejohnson.com]
Sent: Wed 8/5/2009 9:06 AM
To: City Council; Randi Johl
Cc: Blair King; Jordan Ayers
Subject: FW: $80,000 set aside for turf replacement
City Council Members — As you consider the turf at the Grape Bowl, I hope you will ask for the answers to two questions.
Where is parks and recreation going to get the $80,000 in their budget for the turf replacement fund in the 2010/2011
budget? (Please see the emails below.) What is the plan to continue this fund until such time as the turf is replaced with grass
or the Grape Bowl is no longer used?
Finally, if you have never seen this stuff and you would like to get an up close view, give me a call and you can look at it
today at my house. If you want to know which company installedmy stuff, visit www.southwestgreens.com . I have spoken
to them and I understand they will be bidding on the Grape Bowl project.
John
John E. Johnson, CFA
JOHN E. JOHNSON, LLC
106 S. Orange Avenue
Lodi, California 95240
(209)369-1451
(209) 369-3032 FAX
www. j ohnej ohnson. com
------ Forwarded Message
From: Jordan Ayers <ayers@lodi.gov>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 09:44:07 -0700
To: "John E. Johnson, CFA" <john johnejohnson.com>, Blair King<bkingQ1odi.gov>
Cc: "LODI-TOKAYROTARY attn: Kelly Brown" <kellvbrowncpa@sbcglobal.net>, Keith Vargem
<kwvargemPcomcast.net>, Bill Russell <billrussell anfmbonline.com>, Marilyn Domingo <snddllr(c aol.com>, Glenda Wall
<wudbrd ga1Qhotmai1.com>, Bob Bartlett<rcbcsh@sbcglobal.net>, "ci1ycouncilQlodi. ov" <ci , council(a)lodi.gov>
Subject: RE: $80,000 set aside for turf replacement
John
The 2009110 budget does not include any funding for replacement. The replacementfund would not be
established until after the new turf is in place. It is expected that the 2010111 budgetwill include a set aside for
replacement of the artificial turf.
08/05/2009
FW: $80,000 set aside for turf replacement Page 2 of 2
Jordan Ayers
Deputy City Manager/Internal Services Director
City of Lodi
221 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
Phone (209) 333-6700
Fax (209) 333-6807
E -Mail jaayers lodi.gov
From: John E. Johnson, CFA [mailto:iohn@iohnejohnson.coml
Sent: Tuesday, May 05,2009 9:15 AM
To: Blair King; Jordan Ayers
Cc: LODI-TOKAY ROTARY attn: Kelly Brown; Keith Vargem; Bill Russell; Marilyn Domingo; Glenda Wall; Bob
Bartlett; City Council
Subject: $80,000 set aside for turf replacement
Blair and Jordan — As it seemed that no one in the room knew what I was talking about regarding the turf at the Grape Bowl,
I looked at the minutes of a prior Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. Below is an excerpt from the March 12,2009
meeting minutes. According to the minutes, Mr. Rodems told the commission that $80,000 per year would need to beset
aside for future turf replacement. I believe he told the city council the same thing. slave highlightedthe section for you
and, if you would like, I can provide you with the full minutes of that meeting.)
Will this amount of money be set aside in this budget or not? If not, how do you propose that the turf be replaced after 10
years?
Commissioner Wall asked if Lincoln utilizes synthetic turf Mr. Rodems stated it does and they are in theprocess OF
replacing the turf Commissioner Wallsuggested that money beset aside nowfor a replacementfundfor the turf f that's the
direction that's chosen Mr. Rodems stated there's been discussion on newproducts coming down the line building in a
component ce capital replacement. He has estimated that upon the turfs installation, $80,000 ayear would have to beset
aside to replace this turf over a 10year cycle.
John E. Johnson, CFA
JOHN E. JOHNSON, LLC
106 S. Orange Avenue
Lodi, California 95240
(209) 369-1451
(209) 369-3032 FAX
www. j ohnej ohnson. com
------ End of Forwarded Message
08/05/2009
y 11 anu +"`a T'
bn i .�. 5 ^�d S ++kl -•
LLE
ROSI
C' A,} I F 0 1i N I A
Parks & Recreation
2005 Hilltop Chide
Roseville, CA 95747
August 5,2009
Dear lAdi City Council Members:
My name is 5hcltJ7_ Miller and l am the Parks and Recreation Managerfor the City of Roseville Parks
Division and the President of the California Parks and Recreation Society's Developmentand Operations
Section.. Mr..Steve Dutra had asked me to attend this evenings Lodi City Council meeting and to be
available to share my experiences as they retateto syntheticfields and to answer questions, that you may
have, regarding maintenance, safety, and cost issues.. Unfortunately t am unable to attend this evening
due to a prior engagement. Please adept this letter, related to n7y personal and professional experiences
with syntheticturf, in my absence.
The City of Roseville currently operates and maintains a coveredlindoor syntheticturf field and an outdoor
synthetic turf field.. The fields are 111% years old and -8'/2 years old respectively and make up an
approximate total of 4 surface acres.. In our experience the maintenance requirements are dramatically
Jess than those of natural turf fields but they are not maintenancefree as they were advertised in the late
1990's.
Our maintenance practices vary slightly based on the field but follow the same general guidelines. We
groom the fields once per monthwith a pull behind unit. This assists in picking up small debris, re-
distributing rubberthat shifts during play, and assists in keepingthe "leaf' blades standing upright. The
concrete surrounding the field is pressure washed on a weekly basis due to the large amount of food and
beverages spilled in the bleacherarea. On our outdoorfacility we paintthe fietd tines and numbers on a
quarterly basis butwe have the lines and numbers sown in on our newer indoorfacility. All other
maintenance activities are custodial in nature and directly correlateto the use of the field. We have
discovered that overtime, and with heavy use, it becomes necessaryto remove rubberfrom the playing
service as the fiber (leaves) start to get worn down. We started this process in the 7" year of use on our
outdoorfield.. With the increase in quality over the past 8 years it is my belief that we will not need to start
this process on our newer field until year 10 at the earliest.,
These fields provide our residents with a location for recreational activities year round and our residents
and program staff take full advantage of the opportunity. A late fall, winter, or early spring rain storm will
not prevent, or even stop, a game from being played on a near perfect conditioned field.. In addition to
internal programsthe Recreation Division has done an excellentjob at capitalizing on revenue
opportunities associated with the fields.. Both of our field are considered `Rental Facilities" and are not
open for public use as a normal City park k The fields are rented to semi -pro football teams, adult soccer
leagues, youth soccer leagues, etc. The facilities are also utilized by our Recreation Division for classes
and camps and can be utilized by our local high school district as part of our joint use agreement.
Additionally, these facilities can handle events such as concerts, flee markets, outdoor trade shows, etc
with damage to the playing surface. Rutting, root damage, and sprinkler lines are no longer an issue for
standard items such as tents, stages, or vehicles.
We have found that the majority of safety concems are no different than those for a natural turf facility.. In
the 8'/z years that the City of Roseville has been operating synthetic turf fields we have not experienced
any injuries on the syntheticfields that we have not experienced on our natural fields nor have we
experience a greater rate of those injuries.. Syntheticfields do bring one risk that is not generally
associated with natural turf surfaces., Due to the content and makeup of the syntheticturf fields increased
heat coming off of the surface can raise temperature to extreme levels, At the City of Roseville's Mahany
eomplex the field temperature will rise to 140 degrees with a daytime high temperature of 105 degrees.
The question of what is safe and what is not safe is a hard one to answer., We currently leave the call to
the discretion of the sports official or program coordinator who is on site. We also stress the importance of
staying hydrated and recognizing the symptoms of heat stress,. In addition we have a mistersystem that
attendees can stand in for a temporary cool down and this seems to have worked well for us so far.
The industry, as well as educators and researchers in the area of turf management, have been
experimenting and researching new techniques and options to counteract the increased heat. Options
include sideline misters, shade covers, enclosures, sprinkler systems, and the list goes on. The uses of
water for cooling has created an issue with humidity levels and thus opening a safety issue with regards to
heat indexes. Dr..David Minnerat Iowa State Universityis currently researching temperature increases
and humidity levels on synthetic turf and is attemptingto create industry guidelines for "safe" levels but his
research is not yet complete., At this point my personal opinion is that each participant, coach, and official
must make decisions based on their personal feelings at the time..
As you are aware, the construction of a synthetic field is not an inexpensive process and requires a
sizable capital investment. In addition, these fields will not lastforever. Our experience is that a field
constructed in 2000, heavy programmed, and properly maintenancewill last 10 years. Dueto quality
improvement over time we are expecting our field that was installed in 2008 to last 15 years underthe
same use and maintenance..At the end cf the life there is another sizable investmentthat needs to be
made. Every organization must make their own financial decisions regarding how to plan for the eventual
replacement but it will need to be done. As we prepare to replace our oldest field we are finding that we
will be able to replace it for about half the cost of the initiat construction due to the existing infrastructure.
I sincerely hope that this letter has been cf assistance to you and has provided you with answers to
questions or at least provided you with an insight into the possibilitiesthat may exist for the City of Lodi. If
I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitateto contact me.. My direct phone line is: 916-774-
5764 and my email address is: smiller@roseville.ca.us..
Sincerely,
Scott F..Miller
Parks and Recreation Manager
Parks Division
City of Roseville
916.774.5744hone
916.746.1759 fax
www.roseville.ca.us