By Kim Siebert MacPhail
The Board of Health at its September 10th meeting reviewed a letter written by Health Director Heidi Porter that addressed three categories of health concerns regarding the synthetic turf athletic field controversy. The letter was in response to a request for information from the Outdoor Recreation Area Study Committee (ORASC) regarding the latest health studies pertaining to the use of artificial turf.
“There have been multiple discussions—not just by this board—about the real issues and the perceived issues,” said Porter. “Specialists and folks who have been working on these programs and the environmental health agencies and organizations—that’s what the research is based on.”
To organize the findings, Porter identified three distinct components as the focus for the report: 1) exposure to pathogen/infection, 2) chemical contamination, and 3) physical injuries, including heat stress.
With regard to the first category, pathogen/infection exposure, research into the 2008 Penn State studies showed that there appears to be no greater instances of disease transmission on synthetic turf than on natural grass. To avoid infection, therefore,the same recommendations hold true for both types of playing fields: attention to the cleaning and care of wounds; personal hygiene; care not to share equipment, towels and clothing; and proper field maintenance.
Chemical contamination is another area of controversy, and here the research shows that concentrations of chemicals in the materials “do not present an elevated risk, based on conservative, human health, risk-based calculations.” There is also a theory, though little data on the issue as yet, that thermoplastic elastomers (TPE)—an alternative type of material that replaces the more common recycled tire rubber crumb—contain fewer volatile organic compounds. Porter notes in the letter that the price for TPE infill is higher than it is for the standard material.
TPE infill material is also mentioned with regard to heat stress and physical injury, the last of the three categories. Since TPE is available in colors other than black, it can reduce synthetic field-generated heat. Also, to combat heat stress for the players, Porter recommends that attention be directed to adequate hydration during athletic play and that shade and/or a misting tent be considered as a component of the synthetic turf field’s design.
As for other, non-heat related injuries, Porter cited a 2008 study conducted by the New York Department of Health that found no significant differences in the type and frequency of leg and foot injuries between natural and artificial grass playing surfaces. However, another study, published in the 2012 American Journal of Sports Medicine, showed that a greater instance of ACL (knee) injury occurs on synthetic turf because the footing is different than it is on natural grass.
The Health Department’s recommendations for addressing this issue are to educate athletes about the changed traction on synthetic turf and to promote the use of proper footwear. Additionally, Porter stated at the meeting that “the industry is currently working on footwear to be used on these [synthetic turf] kinds of fields.”
Reflecting on the information presented in Porter’s letter to ORASC, Board of Health member Thomas Kinzer said, “I think the bottom line for me is, if you look around at all the other towns that have artificial turf fields, you do not see casualties lying around the premises with damaged knees and dying of heat stroke. It just isn’t happening. And that makes a pretty potent argument.”
With the addition of several minor revisions, the Board of Health unanimously voted to accept Porter’s letter to ORASC.
To read the letter to ORASC in its entirety, visit the Health Department’s website: https://www.town.bedford.ma.us/index.php/departments/health/994-boh-letter-re-artificial-turf-fields-and-potential-health-issues
Loading ...
