Ny scientist who invented artificial turf

Environmental Protection Agency EPA field-tested methods for monitoring particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, and metals at synthetic-turf fields and playgrounds and concluded that concentrations of these materials were below levels of concern. In the EPA acknowledged that its findings were too limited to apply beyond the four sample sites and called for more studies.

In October NBC News aired an investigative report that sparked public concerns about the health risks of crumb rubber. Many of the players had blood cancers, such as lymphoma and leukemia, and most were goalkeepers who regularly dived onto artificial turf. The report found no consensus among experts over health risks associated with crumb rubber, but it led to a wave of media stories about possible links between crumb rubber and cancer. Many communities see synthetic turf as a good investment. Although it costs roughly twice as much to install as a grass field, manufacturers say that artificial turf costs less to maintain and provides more hours of playing time, which adds up to greater cost savings over time.

According to the Synthetic Turf Council, an industry group, more than 1, synthetic-turf playing fields were installed in the United States in Although artificial turf looked like a winner when it was introduced, the contest between synthetic and grass fields has become a hard-fought race.

Natural-grass advocates argue that improved strains of grass need less water, fertilizer, pesticides, and mowing than sods did 10 or 20 years ago, reducing maintenance costs. They also point out that natural grass absorbs rain, reducing storm-water runoff, and transpires water, which cools playing surfaces. Some synthetic-turf manufacturers are introducing alternative fill materials, such as coated sand, ground cork, coconut fiber, and rice husks, in response to health and environmental concerns about crumb rubber.

No independent agency has produced an authoritative life-cycle analysis of the costs and impacts of artificial turf, which leaves local governments wrestling with conflicting information. Most municipalities conclude that synthetic turf will provide more playing time and so is a good investment. But some communities have bucked the trend. Since more than a dozen towns in Massachusetts have voted against installing artificial-turf fields. Communicating to scientists and communicating to the public require different skills.

Three atmospheric scientists talk about how they go beyond the lab. How a steam-powered automobile in snuffed out the life of the brilliant naturalist and astronomer Mary Ward.

Skip to main content. Podcast Video About Subscribe. A shock-absorbing pad, up to 25 mm in thickness, is sometimes installed over the compacted base. These pads were originally installed because first-generation systems were generally 1. The pad increases the shock absorption of the surface. The fibers of modern systems have a pile height in the range of 40 to 70 mm and have been made of polyethylene, nylon, or polypropylene, although polyethylene fibers are most popular currently.

There are 2 types of fibers: slit film or monofilament. Monofilament fibers have a more symmetric cross-sectional shape compared with the slit film bladelike fibers. These thicker fibers were designed to increase resistance to wear, remain more upright, and resist matting to a greater degree compared with slit film fibers. The more upright fibers are believed to affect ball roll and are often selected when the field is used predominantly for soccer.

Unlike slit film fiber, where a group of fibers is tufted through the backing, monofilament fibers are individually stitched and then glued onto the backing. The material that takes up the space between the grasslike fibers is the infill, which typically contains either rubber or a combination of rubber and silica sand.

In most current synthetic surfaces, the infill material is installed to a depth of 25 to 40 mm of the total 40 to 70 mm of fiber length. The crumb rubber typically is a product of recycled vehicle tires that are either ground or cryogenically frozen and shattered and then sized to granules between 2 and 3 mm. The benefit of rubber as a material is its high elasticity and resistance to weathering. Turf systems rely on this crumb rubber to provide cushioning to athletes during play, especially when a pad layer is not present.

Other manufactured granular infill materials include elastomer, polymer, or organic substances such as coconut fiber, cork, and ground walnut shells. These alternative materials may be used more commonly in the future. Carpet sections with grasslike fibers are generally manufactured in foot 4.

During installation, these sections are either stitched or glued together. This creates seams in the playing surface, which have been a concern. Historically, first-generation fields were thin, and small discrepancies in surface grade where the seams joined together created a concern for tripping or entrapment and therefore possible injury.

Playing surface planarity due to seams in third-generation turf is less of a concern because the infill is continuous over the top of the backing seams.

However, the method used to join seams and, particularly, the method used to install logos, numbers, or other permanent field markings, termed inlays , can result in variation of the planarity of the carpet backing and thus result in varying infill thickness across the surface.

This is best accomplished by removing the backing of the existing carpet before installation of an inlay. Attaching the inlay backing over the existing carpet backing is not suggested as this necessitates a thinner layer of infill in those locations to create a planar playing surface.

One of the perceived benefits of synthetic turf over natural turfgrass is that synthetic turf is maintenance free. This is a misconception; synthetic turf requires regular maintenance, which should be specified by the manufacturer. Generally, turf warranties are contingent on the performance of this regular maintenance.

Several routine maintenance practices should be performed. To raise matted-down fibers, brooming with a nylon bristled brush and raking with spring tooth tines is typically accomplished by pulling devices across the surface in multiple directions using a utility vehicle Figure 2.

The frequency of these operations depends, but may be required as often as weekly on surfaces receiving daily use. Besides raising matted-down fibers, brooming and raking can also loosen the top layer of infill material. Other devices using rotating tines or spikes can be used to penetrate, mix, and loosen the infill material to a greater depth.

These are used less frequently, perhaps only 2 or 3 times per year. A maintenance practice of particular importance and observed to be lacking on most third-generation infill systems is the periodic replacement of lost infill.

Over time, the infill thickness can be reduced, possibly resulting in an increased risk of athlete injury by increased surface hardness, traction, or both. Infill depth should be maintained to manufacturer specifications and routinely monitored, with inspections and results recorded. A sample spreadsheet to aid in tracking and suggested test locations is available. To increase thickness, manufacturer-approved infill can be added using a commercial topdressing device common in turfgrass management.

Small amounts should be applied followed by brooming to work the infill into the pile fiber. This process may need to be repeated to reach the required thickness. A professional vendor using specialized equipment may be required for fields that have not received regular infill replenishment for a number of years or where the pile fibers are heavily matted.

The buildup of paint can result in excessive surface hardness. Paint buildup should be monitored, and periodic removal of paint residue is suggested. The frequency of paint removal varies depending on the application methods, but removal after 4 consecutive applications can be used as a guide. Paint removal can be laborious, but new paint technologies and new removal equipment have been developed to aid in more efficient removal.

Debris, while not unique to synthetic surfaces, is also a concern that requires attention. Surface debris such as garbage and leaves can be removed with a blower, sweeper, or vacuum. Commercially available towable magnets are used to remove metal debris such as parts of helmets, jewelry, paper clips, and construction materials Figure 4.

A Magnetic drag and B subsequent metallic debris recovered on the bottom of the drag. Other contaminants, including items such as chewing gum, tobacco, sunflower seeds, oil, and other organic contaminants, can be removed mechanically or chemically at the recommendation of the turf manufacturer.

Body fluids should be diluted and flushed from the surface with water. Antibacterial solutions are available for disinfection of the surfaces, but laundry detergent and ultraviolet light can be comparably effective. One of the most important benefits of modern synthetic surfaces is the increased usability of the facilities.

This is particularly important in stadium settings, where the venue hosts events such as concerts, trade shows, or nonturf sports such as basketball or hockey. To maintain a playable surface, it is important that the synthetic turf is protected during these events. This protection was traditionally accomplished using plywood-type flooring overlaid on the synthetic turf. However, a variety of engineered polypropylene and metal systems are now available, some of which will support the weight of large cranes and other heavy construction traffic.

The goal of these systems is to distribute loads across the surface to prevent infill and gravel base movement. Playing surfaces take on an important role in player health and safety, as evidenced by the common incidence of noncontact injury across many sports, which often involve some degree of interface between an athlete and the playing surface.

Dating back to the s, research has shown reason for concern over injury rates on synthetic turf. Many of the studies published to date report on playing surfaces that are no longer routinely used and are not subject to consistent maintenance practices. There is a mechanistic rationale to assert a causal link between play on a synthetic surface and increased risk of lower extremity injury, specifically within sports that involve heavy loading of the surface, such as soccer and American football.

Because synthetic surfaces lack this ability to release a cleat in a potentially injurious overload situation, they have the capacity to generate greater shear force and torque on the foot and hence throughout the lower extremity. The epidemiological assessments that have been published examining a differential injury rate between synthetic and natural turfs are generally supportive of this hypothesis: Studies that focus on lower extremity injuries caused by a twisting or shearing mechanism typically show greater rates of injury on synthetic versus natural turf.

These findings are consistent with previous NFL studies 16 as well as with the majority of studies among collegiate football players. While these studies, among others, have begun to sort out differences in some athlete populations, a full understanding of the difference in injury risk is complicated by the size and power of the studies as well as differences among sexes, sport, level of competition, weather, footwear, and variations in the playing surfaces themselves, including maintenance.

In addition to the lower extremity injury concerns discussed, 21 head injuries, infectious diseases, heat, and the potential for carcinogenic effects of the playing surface material have all been studied to some extent with regard to synthetic turf surfaces.

Head injuries in athletes are a serious concern. For a given effective head mass during a vertical impact to a surface, the head will experience greater peak acceleration when striking a harder surface than a softer one. The temperature of synthetic turf playing surfaces is an important factor to consider. Thus, the surface temperature is driven by the total amount of solar radiation. Different methods have been tested for cooling these surfaces. The health effects of the material in third-generation synthetic turf components have been the subject of much debate.

In several states, advocacy groups have proposed a moratorium on these materials until they can be proven safe for players. The main concern is carcinogenic risk related to the exposure to harmful chemicals present in the rubber infill. However, it would be prudent for building operators to provide adequate ventilation to prevent a buildup of rubber-related VOCs and SVOCs at indoor fields. Birkholz et al 3 demonstrated that crumb rubber poses minimal risk.

Zhang et al 56 analyzed samples of infill rubber for the bioavailability of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PAHs and several metals. They showed that the rubber infill, especially on newly installed fields, contained levels of PAHs that were above health-based soil standards; however, the level of PAHs was noted to decrease as the fields aged. PAHs in this study had zero or near-zero bioavailability.

Lead metal was detected in the samples and was shown to have some bioavailability. Air quality with rubber infill has been another concern. Dye et al 11 found that indoor facilities have detectible levels of almost chemicals and particulates that could be identified and another chemicals that were detected but not able to be identified.

They do not, however, address the effect these chemicals may have on human health or whether these chemicals are similarly detected on outdoor fields with open air. They noted that the urine samples for PAH metabolites were minimal and within the ranges of PAHs taken up from environmental sources or diet.

While the majority of studies conclude that there is little to no elevated health risk associated with rubber infill, it will be difficult to prove without a doubt. Because of this, it is likely that studies will continue on these synthetic fields to further assess athlete safety. Media outlets have raised concern about the development of skin infections in players exposed to synthetic turf.

Two studies have focused on separate outbreaks of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus MRSA and examined the role of third-generation synthetic turf on infections. They noted that all the infections occurred at areas of turf abrasion. Both of these reports included teams that had third-generation synthetic turf on their home field, and while both concluded that turf abrasion sites could facilitate infection due to the break in skin, neither study implicated the source of the infection as the playing surface itself.

Both studies raised concern for poor sanitary conditions in the associated facilities locker rooms, etc as well as skin-to-skin contact between players as the likely source of the infection. McNitt and Petrunak 31 found no S. Of note, there was generally less total microbe load on synthetic turf compared with natural turfgrass.

This study also tested for the presence of S. The cause of a lack of viable S. Evaluation of the efficacy of Ultraviolet-C light to eliminate Staphylococcus aureus from infilled synthetic turf surfaces.

Read It Here. Artificial-turf surfaces for sport and recreational activities: microbiota analysis and 16S sequencing signature of synthetic vs natural soccer fields. Evaluation of chemicals of environmental concern in crumb rubber and water leachates from several types of synthetic turf football pitches. Compliance with current regulation and future perspectives. Evaluation of organic and inorganic compounds extractable by multiple methods from commercially available crumb rubber mulch.

Incidence of malignant lymphoma in adolescents and young adults in the 58 counties of California with varying synthetic turf field density. Determination of priority and other hazardous substances in football fields of synthetic turf by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry: A health and environmental concern. Release of particles, organic compounds, and metals from crumb rubber used in synthetic turf under chemical and physical stress.

Comprehensive multipathway risk assessment of chemicals associated with recycled "crumb" rubber in synthetic turf fields. Bioaccessibility and risk exposure to metals and SVOCs in artificial turf field fill materials and fibers. Health risk assessment of lead ingestion exposure by particle sizes in crumb rubber on artificial turf considering bioavailability.

Benzothiazole toxicity assessment in support of synthetic turf field human health risk assessment. Human health risk assessment of synthetic turf fields based upon investigation of five fields in Connecticut.

Characterization of substances released from crumb rubber material used on artificial turf fields. Hydroxypyrene in urine of football players after playing on artificial sports fields with tire crumb infill.

Committee report: peer review of an evaluation of the health and environmental impacts associated with synthetic turf playing fields.

Human health risk assessment of artificial turf fields based upon results from five fields in Connecticut. A review of the potential health and safety risks from synthetic turf fields containing crumb rubber infill. Safety study of artificial turf containing crumb rubber infill made from recycled tires: measurements of chemicals and particulates in the air, bacteria in the turf, and skin abrasions caused by contact with the surface.