Next Article in Journal
Assessment of Beaded, Powdered and Coated Desiccants for Atmospheric Water Harvesting in Arid Environments
Next Article in Special Issue
Influence of Organic Matter and Growing Conditions on Dissipation Behavior and Mobility of Two Pesticides in Soils
Previous Article in Journal
Characterization of Per- and/or Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Reclaimed Water in Three Arizona Communities
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Environments
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/environments12040109
environments-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Mechanisms of Generation and Ecological Impacts of Nano- and Microplastics from Artificial Turf Systems in Sports Facilities

by
Akihito Harusato
* and
Masashi Kato
Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya 466-8550, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Environments 2025, 12(4), 109; https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12040109
Submission received: 26 February 2025 / Revised: 31 March 2025 / Accepted: 1 April 2025 / Published: 2 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Monitoring and Assessment of Inorganic and Organic Microcontaminants in Soil, Sediment, Water Systems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The worldwide adoption of artificial turf in sports facilities and urban landscapes, alongside the systematic transition from natural grass and soil-based grounds, has raised growing concerns about its contribution to the significant source of nano- and microplastics in ecosystems. This review examines current knowledge on the mechanisms of nano- and microplastic generation from artificial turf systems and their environmental impacts. Combined mechanical stress, ultra-violet radiation, and weathering processes contribute to the breakdown of synthetic grass fibers and infill materials, generating particles ranging from nanometer to millimeter scales. These nano- and microplastics are detected in drainage systems and surrounding soils near sports facilities. Laboratory studies demonstrate that artificial turf-derived nano- and microplastics can adversely affect soil microbial communities, aquatic organisms, and potentially human health, through various exposure pathways. While current mitigation approaches include hybrid turf, particle retention systems, and improved maintenance protocols, emerging research focuses on developing novel, environmentally friendly materials as alternatives to conventional synthetic turf components. However, field data on emission rates and environmental fate remain limited, and standardized methods for particle characterization and quantification are lacking. This review identifies critical knowledge gaps, underscoring the need for comprehensive research on long-term ecological impacts and highlights the future goal of mitigating nano- and microplastic emissions from artificial turf systems into the ecosystem.

1. Introduction

Throughout the history of sports, playing surfaces have evolved from traditional natural grass fields to contemporary artificial turf systems. While natural grass dominated sports facilities for centuries, the introduction of artificial turf in the 1960s marked a revolutionary change in sports infrastructure, offering improved durability and reduced maintenance requirements. However, this technological advancement has brought new environmental challenges, particularly concerning non-biodegradable nano- and microplastics (NMPs). This review aims to synthesize current knowledge regarding the generation mechanisms of NMPs from artificial turf systems and their environmental impacts. We examine the physical and chemical processes contributing to particle formation, evaluate the factors influencing their release and transport in various environmental compartments, and assess the resulting ecological effects. Additionally, we discuss emerging mitigation strategies to reduce the impact of NMPs and identify research areas that require further attention. Understanding these aspects is crucial for developing more sustainable artificial turf systems and implementing effective environmental protection measures, ensuring that the evolution of sports surfaces continues to balance performance requirements with environmental responsibility.

1.1. History of Sports Venues and Their Playing Surfaces

The development of sports venues reflects humanity’s enduring relationship with athletic competition and communal gathering [1]. While the ancient Greek stadion and Roman amphitheaters are well-documented examples, archaeological evidence reveals sophisticated sporting facilities across various civilizations [2].
In Mesoamerica, the Maya constructed elaborate ball courts with specialized playing surfaces composed of earth and stone-based materials, demonstrating an advanced understanding of surface engineering as early as 1400 BCE. These courts, found at sites such as Chichen Itza and Copán, featured carefully designed drainage systems and precise surface treatments to enable the unique bouncing properties required for their ball games. In ancient China, the Han Dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE) developed specialized venues for cuju, an early form of football. These facilities, known as ju chang, featured packed earth surfaces sometimes covered with fine sand to improve player traction. Similarly, Persian zurkhaneh, traditional athletic facilities dating back to the Parthian period (247 BCE–224 CE), incorporated specific surface preparations to facilitate wrestling and strength training exercises. In Japan, sumo wrestling rings (dohyō) developed specific construction techniques, combining packed clay with sand and straw to create resilient surfaces that remain largely unchanged today.
These examples demonstrate the development of sports facilities in ancient civilizations and the importance of surface technologies, which indirectly influenced the approach to surface design in modern sports facilities, including artificial turf systems.

1.2. The Development of Natural Grass and Artificial Surfaces in Modern Sports

The standardization of playing surfaces emerged alongside the codification of modern sports during the Industrial Revolution [3]. The establishment of natural grass as the standard playing surface in Britain during the 18th and 19th centuries was facilitated by several key factors [4]. The region’s temperate climate, characterized by moderate rainfall and temperatures, proved ideal for year-round grass maintenance. The invention of the lawnmower by Edwin Budding in 1830 revolutionized ground maintenance, enabling efficient management of large grass surfaces.
While British public schools were instrumental in developing both sports and their playing surfaces, the evolution of natural grass surfaces extended far beyond cricket, rugby, and football. These institutions’ extensive grass fields served as experimental grounds where standardized playing conditions evolved alongside codified rules. Natural grass surfaces offered distinct advantages: impact absorption for player safety, adequate drainage during inclement weather, and consistent ball behavior that enhanced game predictability.
In North America, baseball’s emergence in the mid-19th century led to pioneering work in turf management [5]. Groundskeepers at venues like Boston’s Fenway Park (1912) developed innovative techniques for grass cultivation and maintenance that influenced sports facility management worldwide. The advent of American football brought new challenges to natural surface management. The sport’s combination of high-impact play and late-season games in cold weather regions prompted experiments with grass varieties and soil compositions. The Green Bay Packers’ Lambeau Field became a testing ground for cold-weather turf management, leading to innovations in grass breeding and field heating systems. Intriguingly, field hockey’s evolution from natural grass to artificial turf offers an interesting case study in surface transition. The sport’s initial development on natural grass in British India required specific mowing patterns and maintenance techniques to facilitate fast, precise ball movement. These requirements ultimately contributed to the sport’s early adoption of artificial surfaces in the 1970s [6].

1.3. Artificial Turf Systems: A Leading Cause of NMP Pollution

The global adoption of artificial turf systems has significantly increased over the past decades, driven by their durability, safety, low maintenance requirements, and ability to provide consistent playing surfaces in various weather conditions [7,8]. These synthetic surfaces, primarily composed of polymeric materials, have become ubiquitous in sports facilities, urban landscapes, and recreational areas worldwide. However, the widespread implementation of artificial turf has raised growing environmental concerns, particularly regarding their role as a significant source of NMP pollution [9,10,11].
Modern artificial turf systems typically consist of three main components (Figure 1): synthetic grass fibers made from plastics such as polyethylene and nylon, infill materials (often including crumb rubber from recycled tires or synthetic alternatives), and backing materials [12,13]. While these materials provide desired performance characteristics for athletes and other users [14], their degradation through mechanical stress, ultra-violet (UV) exposure, and weathering processes generates NMP particles (Figure 2). Infill materials play a crucial role in most artificial turf systems, as they provide shock absorption, surface stability, and performance consistency. However, certain sports, such as field hockey, utilize non-infill artificial turf, where periodic wetting is required to maintain optimal playing conditions. The presence or absence of infill significantly influences the type and amount of NMPs released, as systems with infill generate both synthetic fiber fragments and micro-rubber particles, whereas non-infill systems primarily release fiber fragments [15,16]. Recent studies have identified artificial turf as one of the largest contributors to NMP emissions in urban environments, with current estimates suggesting that a single full-size sports field can release several hundred kilograms of plastic particles annually, accounting for approximately 38% of the total estimated release in European environments [17,18].
The environmental implications of these emissions from artificial turf have become increasingly apparent. Research has demonstrated that artificial turf-derived particles can be transported through various environmental pathways, including stormwater runoff, wind dispersion, and direct soil infiltration [19,20]. These particles often carry additional chemical compounds, including antiozonants, vulcanization agents, and heavy metals, which can leach into the environment [21]. The potential ecological impacts range from soil microbial community alterations to adverse effects on aquatic organisms, raising concerns about broader ecosystem health [22,23,24].
Despite growing awareness of these environmental challenges, the regulatory framework governing artificial turf systems varies significantly across jurisdictions [25,26]. Recent international policies demonstrate substantial differences in how countries approach the regulation of artificial turf components and their environmental impacts [17,27]. This regulatory heterogeneity, combined with the complex nature of NMP generation and transport, highlights the need for a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms involved and their ecological consequences. Given the widespread use of artificial turf, efforts should also focus on identifying universal solutions and protective measures to mitigate environmental and health risks on a larger scale.
NMPs pose ecological risks through both contaminant adsorption and inherent material properties. They can adsorb heavy metals, PAHs, and POPs, enhancing toxicity, while plastic additives (e.g., phthalates, flame retardants) may leach into the environment [28]. Additionally, their chemical composition, size, and shape influence toxicity, with smaller particles potentially causing biological effects [29].

2. Generation Mechanisms of Nano- and Microplastics from Artificial Turf Systems

Artificial turf systems have emerged as a significant source of NMPs in the environment, with complex generation mechanisms influenced by both mechanical and environmental factors. This section examines the primary mechanisms responsible for NMP formation from artificial turf components, including synthetic grass fibers, infill materials, and backing systems.

2.1. Physical Degradation Mechanisms and Particle Formation

The generation of NMPs from artificial turf systems primarily occurs through mechanical degradation processes, resulting in two main types of particles: micro-sized artificial turf fragments (MATF) from synthetic grass fibers, and micro-sized rubber particles (MRP) from infill materials. These particles are continuously generated and accumulated under mechanical stress caused by foot traffic and maintenance activities [30]. Another study proposed a model system showing that wear significantly contributes to NMP generation, particularly under UV exposure [31]. In addition to mechanical stress, environmental factors such as UV radiation, which varies with latitude and solar radiation intensity, may further accelerate the degradation of artificial turf components, intensifying NMP release. For instance, this physical breakdown process on a soccer field is particularly pronounced in high-traffic areas such as goal mouths and center fields. The interaction among cleats, synthetic grass fibers, and infill materials creates critical friction points that accelerate the breakdown process [32]. Moreover, the size distribution of NMPs generated from artificial turf varies depending on the degradation mechanisms involved. A study has reported that the most frequently detected particles are within the microplastic range (<5 mm), with a significant proportion falling below 1 mm [32,33]. Incorporating these quantitative findings provides a more comprehensive understanding of NMP formation and potential environmental risks. Another recent study specifically investigated wastewater from synthetic football fields, revealing that the NMPs generated from the physical breakdown of synthetic grass fibers and infill materials can be transported through drainage and backing systems [34]. Their findings suggest that NMP generation primarily occurs at the surface level, with particles subsequently migrating downward and being transported via the backing system and drainage structures. Backing systems are typically composed of polyurethane- or latex-coated woven polypropylene, which provides structural support and facilitates drainage. Additionally, artificial turf installations often incorporate anchors or adhesives to secure the turf to the ground, further influencing material degradation and potential particle release.
Moreover, pathways leading to and from sports fields may act as major accumulation zones for NMPs due to frequent particle transport by wind, water runoff, and human activity. These areas could serve as key environmental dispersion routes, further amplifying the spread of artificial turf-derived NMPs beyond the immediate playing surface. Since environmental factors, including UV exposure, contribute to NMP generation and dispersion, understanding potential mitigation strategies is essential. While the role of UV exposure in accelerating this degradation process is well established, the potential impact of shading or roofing on mitigating NMP emissions remains unclear.

2.2. Environmental Weathering and Chemical Degradation

Environmental factors play a crucial role in NMP generation through various weathering processes. After being discarded into the environment, NMPs experience weathering effects, but their low degradation rate under environmental conditions hampers the elucidation of long-term aging behavior. To date, laboratory technologies such as light, heat, chemical oxidation, and γ-ray irradiation, are considered to promote NMP aging [35]. Concurrently, chemical degradation pathways significantly contribute to NMP formation. Huang et al. identified the formation of environmentally persistent free radicals in crumb rubber infill [36]. Zhang et al. (2024) further elucidated the complex interactions between NMP and microbial communities, suggesting that biological processes may also influence degradation patterns [37].
In addition to microbial interactions, artificial turf fibers can support biofilm formation [38], where bacteria and fungi colonize surfaces and potentially accelerate degradation through enzymatic activity. Furthermore, biofilm-coated NMP fragments may act as carriers for microorganisms, influencing their environmental dispersion and potential ecological impacts [39]. Although this remains an underexplored area, further investigation is warranted to clarify the role of biofilms in NMP degradation and transport. Additionally, recent studies suggest that certain insect species possess gut microbiota capable of degrading synthetic polymers, indicating a potential role of insects in NMP degradation [40].
The combination of physical and chemical degradation mechanisms creates synergistic effects that accelerate NMP generation and degradation. Golmohammadi et al. (2023) reported various NMP elimination methods, including chemical technologies (e.g., advanced oxidation processes such as Fenton reactions and ozonation), photocatalytic degradation (e.g., TiO2-based photocatalysis), and biodegradation (e.g., microbial enzyme-mediated degradation) [41]. Notably, the dynamics of NMP generation follow complex patterns influenced by multiple factors. A study based on Schwartz’s law demonstrated that light-mediated plastic degradation follows a distinctive pattern: the release rate of NMPs exhibits a bell-shaped Gaussian probability distribution over time, while their total accumulation follows a sigmoidal pattern, as expected from the integration of a Gaussian function [42]. While Yu et al. (2024) [43] investigated the environmental persistence of NMP degradation products, their potential transgenerational effects have not yet been fully explored.

2.3. Environmental Transport and Distribution

Once generated, NMPs encounter various transport processes that influence their environmental fate [44,45]. Frost et al. (2022) suggested that NMPs, particularly fibers, are pervasive in sewage sludge and agricultural soils [33]. Galkina (2023) [46] specifically investigated the transport of artificial turf-derived NMPs in aquatic environments and identified endocrine-disruptive chemicals of great concern—PFAS precursors—highlighting the potential for widespread environmental contamination through water systems. While identifying the exact sources of NMPs in wastewater treatment plant effluents remains challenging, a report from Australia has shown that long-chain polyfluorinated polymers are used in fiber production, as process aids at concentrations below 0.1% by weight, excluding the backing material [47]. A Swedish study identified polytetrafluoroethylene and fluoroelastomers in artificial turf, concluding that their poor extractability and oxidation resistance render them low risk [48].
The mobility and distribution of these particles are influenced by their size, shape, and environmental conditions [49]. Mousazadehgavan et al. (2024) emphasized the importance of understanding these transport mechanisms for developing effective removal methodologies such as charge neutralization, adsorption, and sweep flocculation [50]. Shi et al. (2024) further explored how the transport of NMPs can influence their interactions with environmental antibiotic resistance genes, underscoring the broader environmental implications of NMP distribution [51]. Additionally, the atmospheric transport of NMPs, especially polyethylene (PE) particles from artificial turf, has become a significant concern, suggesting that atmospheric transport could be a vector to distribute NMPs to soil and aquatic ecosystems. Indeed, PE is the most abundant plastic source identified in Arctic Sea ice [52], although fibrous polyacrylonitrile polymer was the most common in urban areas such as London [53]. To further illustrate the environmental distribution of NMPs, Table 1 summarizes reported concentrations across different environmental compartments, including groundwater, seawater, sediment, and atmospheric deposition.

3. Environmental Impacts of Artificial Turf-Derived Plastics

3.1. Thermal Environmental Effects

Artificial turf systems can affect the local thermal environment due to their distinct physical properties. Studies have shown that artificial turf surfaces exhibit substantially higher surface temperatures compared to natural grass, contributing to the urban heat island effect at a localized scale [67]. The low albedo of artificial turf materials, combined with their limited evaporative cooling capacity, results in increased heat flux into the surrounding environment. A study demonstrated that artificial turf fields can reach temperatures up to 15–20 °C higher than natural turf under identical environmental conditions, potentially affecting local microclimate patterns and ecosystem functioning [68]. With the progression of global warming, the already elevated surface temperatures of artificial turf may increase further, exacerbating thermal stress on athletes and heightening the risk of heat-related illnesses such as heatstroke [69]. Additionally, it has been observed that temperature fluctuations are significantly more pronounced on artificial turf compared to natural grass [68]. Such climatic conditions may accelerate the degradation of plastic materials, thereby increasing the release of NMPs; however, definitive evidence supporting this link remains limited.

3.2. Impacts on Soil and Water Ecosystems

The introduction of artificial turf-derived NMPs into soil ecosystems presents multiple environmental concerns. These particles can accumulate in soil matrices, potentially altering soil structure, water retention capacity, and microbial community composition [8]. A study has shown that contamination of topsoil with crumb rubber particles does not inhibit microbial respiration rates or significantly affect earthworm survivorship, but it may reduce earthworm body weight by approximately 14%, even when heavy metal levels in the contaminated soil remain within New York State’s background levels and remediation targets [70]. The persistence of these synthetic materials in the environment could be particularly problematic, as they do not biodegrade like natural turf components. Furthermore, studies have indicated that the presence of artificial turf particles in soil can impact plant growth and soil organism diversity, though long-term ecological consequences require further investigation [71].
The migration of artificial turf-derived particles into aquatic systems also represents a significant environmental concern. As these materials break down, they can enter stormwater systems and natural waterways, potentially affecting aquatic ecosystems at multiple trophic levels. An investigation documented the presence of turf-derived particles in urban runoff systems, underscoring the environmental risk of infills derived from various materials including recycled tires, virgin thermoplastic elastomers, virgin ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM), and recycled EPDM. Furthermore, the water-soluble compounds leaching from artificial turf materials, including heavy metals (zinc, copper) and organic additives (phenols, phthalates) can further impact water quality and aquatic organism health [72]. Another study has revealed a widespread presence of artificial turf-derived NMPs in both river and sea surface waters, with PE being the most commonly found polymer, showing that artificial turf contributes significantly to aquatic plastic pollution, particularly in coastal areas and during the rainy season when their release into the environment peaks [10]. Although these studies have identified the widespread presence of artificial turf-derived NMPs in aquatic environments, research focusing on the specific impacts of these NMPs on water ecosystems remains limited.

3.3. Potential Implications for Human Health

Although few studies have investigated the effects of artificial turf on human health, it has been demonstrated that aging deterioration increases the generation of NMPs. In fact, higher concentrations of these particles have been detected in the saliva of athletes competing on such surfaces [36]. In vertebrate animal studies, mice exposed to aged crumb rubber particles had lower ovary and thymus weights, although the biological relevance of these changes was deemed low [73]. Another important study using artificial turf infills has revealed that leachate from infills injected into the yolk of fertilized chicken eggs triggered mild to severe developmental malformations, and reduced growth. Specifically, the development of the brain and cardiovascular system was impaired, which was associated with gene dysregulation such as aryl hydrocarbon receptor, stress-response, and thyroid hormone pathways [74]. Epidemiological studies examining human health impacts have shown mixed results. While initial concerns were raised in 2014 about cancer risks in soccer players exposed to artificial turf, particularly goalkeepers [75], studies implemented in the United States showed no significant link between artificial turf exposure and cancer incidence [76]. However, a simulation study suggested children’s cancer risk from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon exposure on rubber playground surfaces could be ten times higher than on soil surfaces [77]. Most health endpoints, other than cancer, remain uninvestigated, and given the many uncertainties, further research is needed. Inhalation of airborne NMPs, particularly those transported through atmospheric pathways, may also pose potential health risks, including respiratory inflammation and systemic toxicity. Recent studies have suggested that chronic exposure to inhaled NMPs could contribute to pulmonary stress and translocation to other organs, although the long-term implications, including potential immune-related mechanisms in cancer, remain to be elucidated [78].

4. Field Work and Analytical Methods for NMP Detection in Artificial Turf Systems

4.1. Field Sampling Approaches

In addition to the established water sampling methodologies [79], the collection and analysis of NMPs from artificial turf systems require carefully designed sampling protocols to ensure representative data collection. Recent studies have employed various sampling strategies for different environmental matrices surrounding artificial turf fields [80]. For water runoff analysis, researchers have installed collection systems at drainage points to capture leachate from artificial turf fields [9]. This approach has proven effective in quantifying the temporal distribution of plastic particles in response to weather events and field usage patterns. Recent studies have shown that artificial turf exhibits lower water retention capacity than natural grass, leading to increased runoff after rainfall events [81]. This heightened runoff has the potential to transport NMPs into surrounding environments.
The methodologies for capturing NMPs from aquatic environments, sediments, and shorelines, where tidal events facilitate exchange between water and coastal areas, could be adapted for studying runoff from artificial turf fields. Three main sampling techniques—selective sampling, bulk sampling, and volume-reduced sampling—are used for this purpose. Selective sampling is suitable for beaches and surface waters but risks missing smaller particles; bulk sampling collects entire samples but can lead to contamination and limited representativeness; volume-reduced sampling captures specific fractions and can handle large water volumes, though mesh size affects detection accuracy. These techniques, especially volume-reduced sampling, could be applied to artificial turf runoff by modifying mesh sizes and sampling durations to address its unique characteristics.

4.2. Advanced Spectroscopic Techniques for Particle Characterization

Modern analytical techniques have revolutionized our ability to detect and characterize NMPs from artificial turf systems. Dark-field hyperspectral microscopy has emerged as a powerful tool for label-free detection of NMPs, allowing for detailed visualization and spectral identification of particles [82]. This technique is particularly valuable for analyzing complex environmental samples where traditional methods might fail to detect smaller particles.
Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopy remains a cornerstone technique for microplastic analysis, providing crucial information about particle composition and degradation state. Several studies demonstrated the effectiveness of FT-IR analysis in distinguishing different types of synthetic materials commonly found in artificial turf systems, although FT-IR has limitations in identifying particles smaller than 20 µm [83]. A recent study developed a sensitive optical imaging technique that can detect and quantify extremely small plastic particles, finding over 100,000 particles per liter in bottled water. This technique could be valuable for analyzing NMPs in smaller sizes shed from artificial turf into the environment [84].
Hydrodynamic chromatography (HDC) separates particles based on size using a column packed with non-porous beads [85]. Larger particles move faster through the center of the flow, while smaller particles elute more slowly at the edges. This size-based separation is particularly useful for analyzing polydisperse samples, such as those from artificial turf. Although HDC has been shown to resolve particles like polystyrene (PS) and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), challenges remain with quadrimodal or more highly polydisperse samples. Post-separation techniques, such as multi-angle light scattering (MALS) and differential refractometry (DRI), can enhance the accuracy of size and molecular weight characterization, addressing the limitations of HDC in highly polydisperse samples (Table 2).
Mass spectrometry (MS), including pyrolysis-GC/MS and thermal desorption-GC/MS, identifies polymer compositions by detecting thermal degradation products, making it valuable for analyzing weathered NMPs where vibrational spectroscopy may fall short [88]. Thermal gravimetric analysis (TGA) quantifies polymer content based on decomposition temperatures, distinguishing NMPs from inorganic particles [89]. Scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM-EDX) provides high-resolution imaging of NMP morphology and elemental composition, useful for assessing weathering patterns [87]. However, it lacks molecular identification, requiring complementary spectroscopic methods. Raman spectroscopy is highly sensitive for NMP analysis, detecting sub-micron particles and analyzing pigmented plastics where FT-IR struggles [86]. However, fluorescence interference can pose challenges, sometimes requiring sample pre-treatment (Table 2).
While various analytical techniques exist for detecting NMPs from artificial turf, there remains a critical lack of standardized, cost-effective sampling and detection protocols for monitoring these particles in real-world environmental settings. The absence of harmonized methodologies, along with the high costs and complexity of instruments like FT-IR spectroscopy, poses significant barriers to routine environmental monitoring and risk assessment.

5. Mitigation Strategies and Future Directions Toward Sustainable Artificial Turf Systems

Current potential strategies for reducing NMPs from artificial turf are summarized in Table 3. Recent research has focused on two main approaches to minimize the environmental impacts of artificial turf systems. The first approach focuses on optimizing existing systems through improved design and engineering solutions to reduce particle generation and enhance containment. The second approach explores the implementation of alternative organic or biodegradable materials to replace conventional synthetic infills. These mitigation strategies, combined with ongoing developments in the field, are shaping the future of sustainable artificial turf systems [90].

5.1. Optimization of Existing Systems for Emission Reduction

Comprehensive maintenance protocols and strategic end-of-life management practices are crucial for mitigating the environmental burden of these systems [97]. Another approach in reducing NMPs from artificial turf systems is to purify wastewater through drainage systems [9]. Several commercially available systems have been proposed to date, but their effectiveness should be further evaluated. Furthermore, the installation of rainwater storage tanks is a sustainable option to remove NMPs from drainage, and the stored water could be reused for artificial turf maintenance [94]. More recently, some manufacturers have implemented techniques like curling artificial turf blades to prevent tearing and reduce infill material leakage into the environment. Additionally, there is a possibility of reducing NMP generation through improvements in coating agents and binder materials used on artificial turf surfaces [91,93]. While hybrid turf systems are utilized in professional sports venues and cannot eliminate NMP emissions, they are recognized as having demonstrable reduction effects. However, their high implementation costs present ongoing challenges for widespread adoption across different regions [95,96].

5.2. Implementation of Alternative Organic and Biodegradable Materials

The most auspicious alternative solutions involve infills made from organic materials including cork, olive pit, corn starch, wood granulate, and coconut fiber. Cork, which has a long-standing industrial use in wine bottle stoppers, demonstrates particular promise for sustainable applications [90,92]. Innovative developments include the integration of plant-based materials like flax, sugar cane, and soybean oil in synthetic grass production. Emerging biodegradable plastic technologies show potential for future artificial turf applications. More recently, paper-based artificial turf has been commercialized, and it has been confirmed that due to its biodegradability, it does not contribute to NMP generation. However, several challenges remain in the development of next-generation artificial turf systems, including the following:
  • Cost: the price of some plant-based infills is often higher than that of traditional rubber infills.
  • Durability: some plant-based infills are prone to degradation when used over extended periods.
  • Maintenance: exposure to rain and humidity can cause mold and further degradation, necessitating careful upkeep.

5.3. Regional Adaptation in Artificial Turf Systems

Building on regional innovations in natural grass management [98,99], the development of climate-specific artificial turf systems offers the potential for reducing NMPs. Long-term studies on Scandinavian grassland management have examined maintenance strategies for climate resilience [100], which may inform the design of artificial turf to minimize degradation and microplastic release. Similarly, research in Qatar on grass maintenance under extreme heat may support the development of UV- and heat-resistant artificial turf to mitigate thermal degradation [101,102]. These regionally adapted systems could minimize chemical treatments and physical stressors, which are key contributors to NMP, while maintaining optimal playing conditions across diverse climates. Leveraging natural grass management strategies for artificial turf development may provide a path to more sustainable and environmentally adaptive sports surfaces.

5.4. Future Outlook for Sustainable Artificial Turf Systems

Recent technological advances have introduced smart monitoring systems that can track wear patterns and material degradation in real time. Although these systems have been successfully implemented in various industries, their application in controlling NMP emissions from artificial turf remains largely untested. Nonetheless, by utilizing sensors and artificial intelligence to optimize maintenance schedules, these systems offer promising potential for predicting and mitigating future hotspots of artificial turf-derived microparticles. Additionally, some facilities have implemented specialized containment barriers and filtration systems designed specifically for artificial turf installations. These systems can significantly reduce the amount of displaced infill materials entering the surrounding environment, though effectiveness varies depending on system design and local conditions.
In recent years, non-infill systems that eliminate the need for infill have been developed. These systems achieve shock absorption by employing specific backing sheets and integrated cushioning layers, and they are expected to offer advantages such as simplified maintenance and reduced environmental impact.
The development of novel hybrid systems that combine natural and artificial elements has also shown promise. These systems typically incorporate a base layer of natural soil or engineered substrate beneath the artificial turf, potentially reducing the overall synthetic material content while maintaining desired performance characteristics. Some manufacturers have begun experimenting with multi-layer designs that incorporate sacrificial wear layers, effectively reducing the rate of NMP generation from the main turf structure.
The environmental impacts of artificial turf-derived NMPs remain complex, necessitating ongoing research to develop sustainable solutions that balance practical advantages with ecological considerations. However, emerging research suggests that a combination of preventive design measures, active monitoring, and responsive maintenance protocols can significantly reduce NMP emissions.

6. Conclusions

Artificial turf systems have been identified as significant sources of NMPs, and their environmental impacts are extensive, while current investigation as well as mitigation methodology remain limited. Future research addressing these challenges will be crucial for developing and implementing more sustainable artificial turf systems. Additionally, differences in NMP generation and migration between dry sports fields with infill and water-based artificial turf systems should be considered, as their respective degradation pathways and dispersion mechanisms vary. Moreover, as artificial turf continues to expand beyond sports facilities into public spaces and urban landscapes, its role in NMP pollution must be assessed within a broader environmental context. This will require multidisciplinary collaboration among environmental scientists, technologists, data scientists, athletes, and health professionals, as well as continued technological innovation to minimize environmental impact while maintaining the practical benefits of artificial turf installations. A combination of preventive design strategies, advanced monitoring techniques, and adaptive management approaches will be essential in mitigating NMP emissions and ensuring long-term sustainability.

Author Contributions

A.H.: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Visualization, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing; M.K.: Supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Kurita Water and Environment Foundation (Grant Nos. 23H020 and 24K027 to A.H.) and by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (Grant No. 22K11731 [C] to A.H. and Grant Nos. 23H03147 and 23K27837 [B] to M.K.). It was also supported by the JSPS Fund for the Promotion of Joint International Research (Grant No. 22KK0145 to M.K.).

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI and the Kurita Water and Environment Foundation. We are also grateful to the AMED–NYAS Interstellar Initiative for fostering interdisciplinary discussions that contributed to the development of this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

  1. McComb, D.G. Sports in World History; Routledge: London, UK, 2004; pp. 1–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kyle, D.G. Sport and Spectacle in the Ancient World, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  3. Fried, G.; Kastel, M. Managing Sport Facilities; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  4. Walvin, J. The People’s Game: The History of Football Revisited; Random House: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  5. Jenkins, V. The Lawn: A History of an American Obsession; Smithsonian Institution: Washington, DC, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  6. Fleming, P.R.; Young, C.; Roberts, J.R.; Jones, R.; Dixon, N. Human Perceptions of Artificial Surfaces for Field Hockey. Sports Eng. 2005, 8, 121–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kuitunen, I.; Immonen, V.; Pakarinen, O.; Mattila, V.M.; Ponkilainen, V.T. Incidence of Football Injuries Sustained on Artificial Turf Compared to Grass and Other Playing Surfaces: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. eClin. Med. 2023, 59, 101956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Cheng, H.; Hu, Y.; Reinhard, M. Environmental and Health Impacts of Artificial Turf: A Review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 2114–2129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Verschoor, A.J.; van Gelderen, A.; Hofstra, U. Fate of Recycled Tyre Granulate Used on Artificial Turf. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2021, 33, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. de Haan, W.P.; Quintana, R.; Vilas, C.; Cózar, A.; Canals, M.; Uviedo, O.; Sanchez-Vidal, A. The Dark Side of Artificial Greening: Plastic Turfs as Widespread Pollutants of Aquatic Environments. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 334, 122094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Duque-Villaverde, A.; Armada, D.; Dagnac, T.; Llompart, M. Recycled Tire Rubber Materials in the Spotlight. Determination of Hazardous and Lethal Substances. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 929, 172674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Williams, S.; Hume, P.A.; Kara, S. A Review of Football Injuries on Third and Fourth Generation Artificial Turfs Compared with Natural Turf. Sports Med. 2011, 41, 903–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Theobald, P.; Whitelegg, L.; Nokes, L.D.M.; Jones, M.D. The Predicted Risk of Head Injury from Fall-Related Impacts on to Third-Generation Artificial Turf and Grass Soccer Surfaces: A Comparative Biomechanical Analysis. Sports Biomech. 2010, 9, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Burillo, P.; Gallardo, L.; Felipe, J.L.; Gallardo, A.M. Artificial Turf Surfaces: Perception of Safety, Sporting Feature, Satisfaction and Preference of Football Users. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2014, 14, S437–S447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fleming, P.R.; Forrester, S.E.; McLaren, N.J. Understanding the Effects of Decompaction Maintenance on the Infill State and Play Performance of Third-Generation Artificial Grass Pitches. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part P J. Sports Eng. Technol. 2015, 229, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Environmental Impact Study on Artificial Football Turf—Eunomia. Available online: https://eunomia.eco/reports/environmental-impact-study-on-artificial-football-turf/ (accessed on 17 March 2025).
  17. Zuccaro, P.; Thompson, D.C.; De Boer, J.; Llompart, M.; Watterson, A.; Bilott, R.; Birnbaum, L.S.; Vasiliou, V. The European Union Ban on Microplastics Includes Artificial Turf Crumb Rubber Infill: Other Nations Should Follow Suit. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 58, 2591–2594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Microplastics—ECHA. Available online: https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/microplastics (accessed on 17 March 2025).
  19. Bø, S.M.; Bohne, R.A.; Aas, B.; Hansen, L.M. Material Flow Analysis for Norway’s Artificial Turfs. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 588, 042068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kawakami, T.; Sakai, S.; Obama, T.; Kubota, R.; Inoue, K.; Ikarashi, Y. Characterization of Synthetic Turf Rubber Granule Infill in Japan: Rubber Additives and Related Compounds. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 840, 156716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Chai, Y.; Wang, X.; Wang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Dai, Z.; Yang, J. Tire Wear Particle Leachate Exhibits Trophic and Multi-Generational Amplification: Potential Threat to Population Viability. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 480, 136497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lv, M.; Chen, H.; Liang, Z.; Sun, A.; Lu, S.; Ren, S.; Zhu, D.; Wei, S.; Chen, L.; Ding, J. Stress of Soil Moisture and Temperature Exacerbates the Toxicity of Tire Wear Particles to Soil Fauna: Tracking the Role of Additives through Host Microbiota. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 480, 135995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ding, J.; Liang, Z.; Lv, M.; Li, X.; Lu, S.; Ren, S.; Yang, X.; Li, X.; Tu, C.; Zhu, D.; et al. Aging in Soil Increases the Disturbance of Microplastics to the Gut Microbiota of Soil Fauna. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 461, 132611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Xu, S.; Wang, Q.; Lao, J.Y.; Cao, Y.; Hong, P.; Chen, C.; Lam, E.Y.; Fang, J.K.H.; Lee, S.; Leung, K.M.Y. Typical Tire Additives in River Water: Leaching, Transformation, and Environmental Risk Assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 58, 18940–18949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. FIFA Football Turf. Available online: https://inside.fifa.com/technical/football-technology/standards/football-turf (accessed on 19 January 2025).
  26. FIH FIH Certified Fields | FIH Certifications | FIH Quality Programme. Available online: https://www.fih.hockey/about-fih/fih-quality-programme/fih-certifications/fih-certified-fields (accessed on 19 January 2025).
  27. Zuccaro, P.; Thompson, D.C.; de Boer, J.; Watterson, A.; Wang, Q.; Tang, S.; Shi, X.; Llompart, M.; Ratola, N.; Vasiliou, V. Artificial Turf and Crumb Rubber Infill: An International Policy Review Concerning the Current State of Regulations. Environ. Chall. 2022, 9, 100620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ali, M.; Xu, D.; Yang, X.; Hu, J. Microplastics and PAHs Mixed Contamination: An in-Depth Review on the Sources, Co-Occurrence, and Fate in Marine Ecosystems. Water Res. 2024, 257, 121622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Harusato, A.; Seo, W.; Abo, H.; Nakanishi, Y.; Nishikawa, H.; Itoh, Y. Impact of Particulate Microplastics Generated from Polyethylene Terephthalate on Gut Pathology and Immune Microenvironments. IScience 2023, 26, 106474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xie, L.; Zhu, K.; Jiang, W.; Lu, H.; Yang, H.; Deng, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Jia, H. Toxic Effects and Primary Source of the Aged Micro-Sized Artificial Turf Fragments and Rubber Particles: Comparative Studies on Laboratory Photoaging and Actual Field Sampling. Environ. Int. 2022, 170, 107663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Nakanishi, Y.; Yamaguchi, H.; Hirata, Y.; Nakashima, Y.; Fujiwara, Y. Micro-Abrasive Glass Surface for Producing Microplastics for Biological Tests. Wear 2021, 477, 203816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mehmood, T.; Peng, L. Polyethylene Scaffold Net and Synthetic Grass Fragmentation: A Source of Microplastics in the Atmosphere? J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 429, 128391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Frost, H.; Bond, T.; Sizmur, T.; Felipe-Sotelo, M. A Review of Microplastic Fibres: Generation, Transport, and Vectors for Metal(Loid)s in Terrestrial Environments. Environ. Sci. Process Impacts 2022, 24, 504–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hua, J.; Lundqvist, M.; Naidu, S.; Ekvall, M.T.; Cedervall, T. Environmental Risks of Breakdown Nanoplastics from Synthetic Football Fields. Environ. Pollut. 2024, 347, 123652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Liu, P.; Shi, Y.; Wu, X.; Wang, H.; Huang, H.; Guo, X.; Gao, S. Review of the Artificially-Accelerated Aging Technology and Ecological Risk of Microplastics. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 768, 144969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Huang, Q.; Wang, J.; Wang, J.; Yu, D.; Zhan, Y.; Liu, Z. Emerging Health Risks of Crumb Rubber: Inhalation of Environmentally Persistent Free Radicals via Saliva During Artificial Turf Activities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 57, 21005–21015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, T.; Shi, Y.; Liu, Y.; Yang, J.; Guo, M.; Bai, S.; Hou, N.; Zhao, X. A Study on Microbial Mechanism in Response to Different Nano-Plastics Concentrations in Constructed Wetland and Its Carbon Footprints Analysis. Chem. Eng. J. 2024, 480, 148023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gong, X.; Ge, Z.; Ma, Z.; Li, Y.; Huang, D.; Zhang, J. Effect of Different Size Microplastic Particles on the Construction of Algal-Bacterial Biofilms and Microbial Communities. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 343, 118246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fournier, E.; Etienne-Mesmin, L.; Grootaert, C.; Jelsbak, L.; Syberg, K.; Blanquet-Diot, S.; Mercier-Bonin, M. Microplastics in the Human Digestive Environment: A Focus on the Potential and Challenges Facing in Vitro Gut Model Development. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 415, 125632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vital-Vilchis, I.; Karunakaran, E. Using Insect Larvae and Their Microbiota for Plastic Degradation. Insects 2025, 16, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Golmohammadi, M.; Fatemeh Musavi, S.; Habibi, M.; Maleki, R.; Golgoli, M.; Zargar, M.; Dumée, L.F.; Baroutian, S.; Razmjou, A. Molecular Mechanisms of Microplastics Degradation: A Review. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2023, 309, 122906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bai, R.; Li, Z.; Liu, Q.; Liu, Q.; Cui, J.; He, W. The Reciprocity Principle in Mulch Film Deterioration and Microplastic Generation. Environ. Sci. Process Impacts 2024, 26, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Yu, H.; Jia, H.; Shen, N.; Gang, D.; Yuan, W.; Yang, Y.; Hu, C.; Qu, J. Can “Risk-Sharing” Mechanisms Help Clonal Aquatic Plants Mitigate the Stress of Nanoplastics? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 58, 2984–2997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Peng, L.; Fu, D.; Qi, H.; Lan, C.Q.; Yu, H.; Ge, C. Micro- and Nano-Plastics in Marine Environment: Source, Distribution and Threats—A Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 698, 134254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Xu, J.; Zuo, R.; Shang, J.; Wu, G.; Dong, Y.; Zheng, S.; Xu, Z.; Liu, J.; Xu, Y.; Wu, Z.; et al. Nano- and Micro-Plastic Transport in Soil and Groundwater Environments: Sources, Behaviors, Theories, and Models. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 904, 166641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. “Possible Impact of Additives in Artificial Turf on Aquatic Life in the” by Elena Galkina. Available online: https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone/1509/ (accessed on 23 January 2025).
  47. Beetstra-Hill, S. A Review of Recent Research and Findings on the Environmental Aspects of Artificial Turf Surfaces. Available online: www.multisportpitch.com.au (accessed on 22 February 2025).
  48. Lauria, M.Z.; Naim, A.; Plassmann, M.; Fäldt, J.; Sühring, R.; Benskin, J.P. Widespread Occurrence of Non-Extractable Fluorine in Artificial Turfs from Stockholm, Sweden. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2022, 9, 666–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Shamskhany, A.; Li, Z.; Patel, P.; Karimpour, S. Evidence of Microplastic Size Impact on Mobility and Transport in the Marine Environment: A Review and Synthesis of Recent Research. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 760649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mousazadehgavan, M.; Khademi, S.; Naeini, A.M.; Yoosefdoost, I.; Vashisht, V.; Hashemi, M.; Manouchehri, M.; Hashim, K. Fate of Micro- and Nanoplastics in Water Bodies: A Critical Review of Current Challenges, the next Generation of Advanced Treatment Techniques and Removal Mechanisms with a Special Focus on Stormwater. J. Water Process Eng. 2024, 67, 106159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Shi, J.; Sun, C.; An, T.; Jiang, C.; Mei, S.; Lv, B. Unraveling the Effect of Micro/Nanoplastics on the Occurrence and Horizontal Transfer of Environmental Antibiotic Resistance Genes: Advances, Mechanisms and Future Prospects. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 947, 174466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bergmann, M.; Mützel, S.; Primpke, S.; Tekman, M.B.; Trachsel, J.; Gerdts, G. White and Wonderful? Microplastics Prevail in Snow from the Alps to the Arctic. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaax1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Wright, S.L.; Ulke, J.; Font, A.; Chan, K.L.A.; Kelly, F.J. Atmospheric Microplastic Deposition in an Urban Environment and an Evaluation of Transport. Environ. Int. 2020, 136, 105411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Eo, S.; Hong, S.H.; Song, Y.K.; Lee, J.; Lee, J.; Shim, W.J. Abundance, Composition, and Distribution of Microplastics Larger than 20 μm in Sand Beaches of South Korea. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 238, 894–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Reed, S.; Clark, M.; Thompson, R.; Hughes, K.A. Microplastics in Marine Sediments near Rothera Research Station, Antarctica. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 133, 460–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wan, Y.; Chen, X.; Liu, Q.; Hu, H.; Wu, C.; Xue, Q. Informal Landfill Contributes to the Pollution of Microplastics in the Surrounding Environment. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 293, 118586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Shi, J.; Dong, Y.; Shi, Y.; Yin, T.; He, W.; An, T.; Tang, Y.; Hou, X.; Chong, S.; Chen, D.; et al. Groundwater Antibiotics and Microplastics in a Drinking-Water Source Area, Northern China: Occurrence, Spatial Distribution, Risk Assessment, and Correlation. Environ. Res. 2022, 210, 112855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nel, H.A.; Froneman, P.W. A Quantitative Analysis of Microplastic Pollution along the South-Eastern Coastline of South Africa. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 101, 274–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wessel, C.C.; Lockridge, G.R.; Battiste, D.; Cebrian, J. Abundance and Characteristics of Microplastics in Beach Sediments: Insights into Microplastic Accumulation in Northern Gulf of Mexico Estuaries. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 109, 178–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kanhai, L.D.K.; Johansson, C.; Frias, J.P.G.L.; Gardfeldt, K.; Thompson, R.C.; O’Connor, I. Deep Sea Sediments of the Arctic Central Basin: A Potential Sink for Microplastics. Deep-Sea Res. I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 2019, 145, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cha, J.; Lee, J.Y.; Chia, R.W. Microplastics Contamination and Characteristics of Agricultural Groundwater in Haean Basin of Korea. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 864, 161027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhao, S.; Zhu, L.; Wang, T.; Li, D. Suspended Microplastics in the Surface Water of the Yangtze Estuary System, China: First Observations on Occurrence, Distribution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 86, 562–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Kusui, T.; Noda, M. International Survey on the Distribution of Stranded and Buried Litter on Beaches along the Sea of Japan. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2003, 47, 175–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. An, X.; Li, W.; Lan, J.; Adnan, M. Preliminary Study on the Distribution, Source, and Ecological Risk of Typical Microplastics in Karst Groundwater in Guizhou Province, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022, 19, 14751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zhu, L.; Bai, H.; Chen, B.; Sun, X.; Qu, K.; Xia, B. Microplastic Pollution in North Yellow Sea, China: Observations on Occurrence, Distribution and Identification. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 636, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ambrosini, R.; Azzoni, R.S.; Pittino, F.; Diolaiuti, G.; Franzetti, A.; Parolini, M. First Evidence of Microplastic Contamination in the Supraglacial Debris of an Alpine Glacier. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 253, 297–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Yaghoobian, N.; Kleissl, J.; Krayenhoff, E.S. Modeling the Thermal Effects of Artificial Turf on the Urban Environment. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 2010, 49, 332–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Jim, C.Y. Intense Summer Heat Fluxes in Artificial Turf Harm People and Environment. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 157, 561–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Bernard, P.; Chevance, G.; Kingsbury, C.; Baillot, A.; Romain, A.J.; Molinier, V.; Gadais, T.; Dancause, K.N. Climate Change, Physical Activity and Sport: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2021, 51, 1041–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pochron, S.T.; Fiorenza, A.; Sperl, C.; Ledda, B.; Patterson, C.L.; Tucker, C.C.; Tucker, W.; Ho, Y.L.; Panico, N. The Response of Earthworms (Eisenia Fetida) and Soil Microbes to the Crumb Rubber Material Used in Artificial Turf Fields. Chemosphere 2017, 173, 557–562. [Google Scholar]
  71. Watterson, A. Artificial Turf: Contested Terrains for Precautionary Public Health with Particular Reference to Europe? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Magnusson, S.; Mácsik, J. Analysis of Energy Use and Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Metals and Organic Substances from Construction Materials Used for Artificial Turf. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 122, 362–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. National Toxicology NTP Research Report on Synthetic Turf/Recycled Tire Crumb Rubber: 14 Day Exposure Characterization Studies of Crumb Rubber in Female Mice Housed on Mixed Bedding or Dosed via Feed or Oral Gavage. 2019. Available online: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/publications/reports/rr/rr14 (accessed on 23 January 2025).
  74. Xu, E.G.; Lin, N.; Cheong, R.S.; Ridsdale, C.; Tahara, R.; Du, T.Y.; Das, D.; Zhu, J.; Silva, L.P.; Azimzada, A.; et al. Artificial Turf Infill Associated with Systematic Toxicity in an Amniote Vertebrate. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 25156–25161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Bleyer, A. Synthetic Turf Fields, Crumb Rubber, and Alleged Cancer Risk. Sports Med. 2017, 47, 2437–2441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Bleyer, A.; Keegan, T. Incidence of Malignant Lymphoma in Adolescents and Young Adults in the 58 Counties of California with Varying Synthetic Turf Field Density. Cancer Epidemiol. 2018, 53, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Tarafdar, A.; Oh, M.J.; Nguyen-Phuong, Q.; Kwon, J.H. Profiling and Potential Cancer Risk Assessment on Children Exposed to PAHs in Playground Dust/Soil: A Comparative Study on Poured Rubber Surfaced and Classical Soil playgrounds in Seoul. Environ. Geochem. Health 2020, 42, 1691–1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Bhat, M.A.; Gedik, K.; Gaga, E.O. Atmospheric Micro (Nano) Plastics: Future Growing Concerns for Human Health. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2022, 16, 233–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kurniasari, F.; Htike, M.T.; Tazaki, A.; Kagawa, T.; Al Hossain, M.M.A.; Akhand, A.A.; Ahsan, N.; Ohnuma, S.; Iwasaki, N.; Kato, M. Beneficial and Adverse Effects of Dam Construction in Canal Tannery Wastewater Effluent with a High Content of Chromium in Hazaribagh, Bangladesh. Chemosphere 2024, 350, 141047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Murphy, M.; Warner, G.R. Health Impacts of Artificial Turf: Toxicity Studies, Challenges, and Future Directions. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 310, 119841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Simpson, T.J.; Francis, R.A. Artificial Lawns Exhibit Increased Runoff and Decreased Water Retention Compared to Living Lawns Following Controlled Rainfall Experiments. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 63, 127232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Nigamatzyanova, L.; Fakhrullin, R. Dark-Field Hyperspectral Microscopy for Label-Free Microplastics and Nanoplastics Detection and Identification in Vivo: A Caenorhabditis Elegans Study. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 271, 116337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Andoh, C.N.; Attiogbe, F.; Bonsu Ackerson, N.O.; Antwi, M.; Adu-Boahen, K. Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy: An Analytical Technique for Microplastic Identification and Quantification. Infrared Phys. Technol. 2024, 136, 105070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Qian, N.; Gao, X.; Lang, X.; Deng, H.; Bratu, T.M.; Chen, Q.; Stapleton, P.; Yan, B.; Min, W. Rapid Single-Particle Chemical Imaging of Nanoplastics by SRS Microscopy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2024, 121, e2300582121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Enfrin, M.; Hachemi, C.; Hodgson, P.D.; Jegatheesan, V.; Vrouwenvelder, J.; Callahan, D.L.; Lee, J.; Dumée, L.F. Nano/Micro Plastics—Challenges on Quantification and Remediation: A Review. J. Water Process Eng. 2021, 42, 102128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Dąbrowska, A.; Mielańczuk, M.; Syczewski, M. The Raman Spectroscopy and SEM/EDS Investigation of the Primary Sources of Microplastics from Cosmetics Available in Poland. Chemosphere 2022, 308, 136407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Gniadek, M.; Dąbrowska, A. The Marine Nano- and Microplastics Characterisation by SEM-EDX: The Potential of the Method in Comparison with Various Physical and Chemical Approaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 148, 210–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Zhang, J.; Fu, D.; Feng, H.; Li, Y.; Zhang, S.; Peng, C.; Wang, Y.; Sun, H.; Wang, L. Mass Spectrometry Detection of Environmental Microplastics: Advances and Challenges. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2024, 170, 117472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Mansa, R.; Zou, S. Thermogravimetric Analysis of Microplastics: A Mini Review. Environ. Adv. 2021, 5, 100117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Bø, S.M.; Bohne, R.A.; Lohne, J. Environmental Impacts of Artificial Turf: A Scoping Review. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 21, 10205–10216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Fleming, P.; Ferrandino, M.; Forrester, S. Artificial Turf Field—A New Build Case Study. Procedia Eng. 2016, 147, 836–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Dickson, K.; Sorochan, J.; Strunk, W. Impact of Alternative Synthetic Turf Infills on Athlete Performance and Safety. Proceedings 2020, 49, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Holmberg, K.; Matthews, A. Coatings Tribology: Properties, Mechanisms, Techniques and Applications in Surface Engineering. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  94. van Huijgevoort, M.H.J.; Cirkel, D.G.; Voeten, J.G.W.F. Climate Adaptive Solution for Artificial Turf in Cities: Integrated Rainwater Storage and Evaporative Cooling. Front. Sustain. Cities 2024, 6, 1399858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Thanheiser, S.Y.; Grashey-Jansen, S.; Armbruster, G. Hardness Measurement of Natural and Hybrid Turf Soccer Fields. Sports Eng. 2018, 21, 367–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Thoms, A.W.; Bearss, R.; Rogers, J.N.; Sorochan, J.C. An Evaluation of Mat Hybrid Turfgrass Systems under Simulated Traffic. Int. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 2022, 14, 385–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Inside FIFA. Available online: https://inside.fifa.com/innovation/stadium-guidelines/general-process-guidelines/design/turf-and-pitch-design (accessed on 19 February 2025).
  98. Stiles, V.H.; James, I.T.; Dixon, S.J.; Guisasola, I.N. Natural Turf Surfaces: The Case for Continued Research. Sports Med. 2009, 39, 65–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Aamlid, T.S.; Hanslin, H.M. Evaluation of Organic Fertilizers and Biostimulants on Sand-Based Golf Greens and Football Pitches under Scandinavian Climate Conditions. Intl. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 2009, 11, 919–931. [Google Scholar]
  100. Henrik Wahlman, P.M. Management of Semi-Natural Grassland Vegetation: Evaluation of a Long-Term Experiment in Southern Sweden on JSTOR. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23726791?seq=1 (accessed on 17 March 2025).
  101. Habib, S.; Al-Ghamdi, S.G. Estimation of Above-Ground Carbon-Stocks for Urban Greeneries in Arid Areas: Case Study for Doha and FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021, 9, 635365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Zhou, L.; Wang, X.; López-Carr, D.; Wang, Z.; Wang, B.; Gao, F.; Wei, W. The World Cup Reshaped the Urban Green Space Pattern of Qatar. Ecol. Inform. 2024, 81, 102551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Environments 12 00109 g001
Figure 1. Artificial turf systems. (a) A photograph from fieldwork on an artificial turf field shows infill granules (black) spreading out from the artificial grass, leading to NMP pollution. (b) A schematic diagram of the layered artificial turf system. The artificial turf system consists of multiple layers: synthetic grass surface with backing, shock-absorbing pad, aggregate base layer, and compacted subgrade soil with integrated drainage tubes.
Figure 1. Artificial turf systems. (a) A photograph from fieldwork on an artificial turf field shows infill granules (black) spreading out from the artificial grass, leading to NMP pollution. (b) A schematic diagram of the layered artificial turf system. The artificial turf system consists of multiple layers: synthetic grass surface with backing, shock-absorbing pad, aggregate base layer, and compacted subgrade soil with integrated drainage tubes.
Environments 12 00109 g001
Environments 12 00109 g002
Figure 2. Nano- and microplastic generation and ecological impact pathways. Mechanical stress, UV radiation from sunlight, and weathering processes induce physicochemical degradation of synthetic grass fibers and infill materials, generating NMPs. These NMPs pass through the drainage systems under artificial turf and spread throughout the ecosystem.
Figure 2. Nano- and microplastic generation and ecological impact pathways. Mechanical stress, UV radiation from sunlight, and weathering processes induce physicochemical degradation of synthetic grass fibers and infill materials, generating NMPs. These NMPs pass through the drainage systems under artificial turf and spread throughout the ecosystem.
Environments 12 00109 g002
Table 1. Characteristics of nano- and microplastics in different environments.
Table 1. Characteristics of nano- and microplastics in different environments.
Sample LocationType (Shape)SizeAbundance
(Concentration)		References
South Korean coastPS, PE, PP0.02–5 mm0-62,800/m2Eo et al. (2018) [54]
Adelaide Island, Antarcticafiber2–5 in length, <0.1 mm in diameter0–5/10 mLReed et al. (2018) [55]
Borehole, ChinaPU, PAT, PA, PEC, PP, PE, PS, PET20–150 mm11–17/LWan et al. (2022) [56]
Well, ChinaPA, PE, PP, PVC, PS<2500 mm4–72/LShi et al. (2022) [57]
South-eastern coastline of South Africafiber0.08–5 mm257.9 ± 53.36–3308 ± 1449/m3Nel and Froneman (2015) [58]
Gulf of Mexico estuaryPE, PP, PS, Polyester, Nylon2.5 ± 0.48 mm5–117/m2Wessel et al. (2016) [59]
Arctic Central Basinfiber, fragment1–2 mm0.7/m3Kanhai et al. (2018) [60]
Well, KoreaPP, PE, PVC, PS20–5000 mm0.02–3.48/LCha et al. (2023) [61]
Yangtze Estuaryfibers, granules, films0.5–5 mm4137.3 ± 2461.5/m3Zhao et al. (2014) [62]
Beaches along the Sea of Japanstyrofoam, fragment (UDP)-1902.69/m2Kusui and Noda (2003) [63]
Open underground water, ChinaPE, PS, PET, PP, PA, PVC1–5000 mm2.33–9.50/LAn et al. (2022) [64]
North Yellow Sea, Chinafilm, fiber, granule, pellet<0.5 mm545 ± 282/m3Zhu et al. (2018) [65]
Central London, Atmospherefibrous, non-fibrous, film; PS, PAN, PVC, PE, PU, PES, PET, PA, PPfibrous: 20–25; non-fibrous: 75–100, film (PE): 1080 mmfibrous: 712 ± 162; non–fibrous 59 ± 32/m2/dWright et al. (2020) [53]
Italian Alps, Altitude of 2580 mfragment: 65.2%, fibers: 34.8%; polyester, PA, PE, PP39% <100 mm74.4 ± 28.3/kgAmbrosini et al. (2019) [66]
Notes: PE: polyethylene; PS: polystyrene; PP: polypropylene; PA: polyamide; PAN: polyacrylonitrile; PES: polyethersulfoneresins; UDP: undetermined plastic particles; PVC: polyvinylchloride; PU: polyurethane; PAT: polyacetal; PEC: polyethylenechlorinated; PET: polyethyleneterephthalate.
Table 2. Potential strategies for detecting nano- and microplastics.
Table 2. Potential strategies for detecting nano- and microplastics.
Analytical TechniqueDetection Limit (μm/nm)Size Range (μm/nm)QuantificationPrimary Analysis TargetAdvantagesLimitationsReferences
FTIR (Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy)~10 μm10 μm–mmNot typically quantitativeOrganic polymersNon-destructive, cost-effectiveCannot detect below ~10 μmAndoh et al. (2024) [83]
Raman spectroscopy~100 nm100 nm–mmNot typically quantitativeOrganic polymersHigh spatial resolution, detects small particlesFluorescence interference, slow analysisDąbrowska et al. (2022) [86]
SEM-EDX (scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray)A few nm10 nm–mmSemi-quantitativeOrganic and inorganic compositionShape and elemental analysis possibleSample preparation required, polymer ID limitedGniadek and Dąbrowska. (2019) [87]
Mass spectrometry (MS)A few nm1 nm–μmHighly quantitativeMolecular structureHigh sensitivity, molecular analysis possibleComplex sample preparationZhang et al. (2024) [88]
TGA (thermogravimetric analysis)Not
applicable		Not
applicable		Quantitative (mass-based)Thermal stability and compositionIdentifies thermal degradation patternsNo size/shape informationMansa and Zou. (2021) [89]
Hydrodynamic Chromatography (HDC)A few nm5 nm–10 μmQuantitative (size-based)Particle size distributionHigh-resolution particle size separationRequires chromatography setupEnfrin et al. (2021) [85]
Table 3. Potential strategies for reducing nano- and microplastics from artificial turf system.
Table 3. Potential strategies for reducing nano- and microplastics from artificial turf system.
MethodDescriptionAdvantagesChallengesReferences
Drainage purificationFilters or adsorbents used to remove NMPs from drainageEasy implementationEffectiveness evaluation, maintenance costsVerschoor et al. (2021) [9]
Binder material improvementAdhesives or stabilizers added to infill materials to prevent disintegrationReduces material dispersion, increases durabilityDifficulty applying to existing productsFleming et al. (2016) [91]
Use of organic materialsBiodegradable materialsEnvironmentally friendlyHigh cost
Durability concerns		Dickson et al. (2020) [92]
Maintenance optimizationRegular cleaning and infill management based on usage frequencyCost-savingLimited effectInside FIFA, FIFA.
Surface processingCurling and coatings to prevent particle abrasionReduces NMP generationDurability of the curling and coatingHolmberg et al. (2009) [93]
Fleming et al. (2016) [91]
Rainwater storage tanksCaptures runoff in tanks for subsequent filtrationReduces discharge
Useful for other purposes		Space requirements
Maintenance issue		Huijgevoort et al. (2009) [94]
Hybrid turfCombination of natural and artificial grassReduces discharge
Low maintenance cost		High installation costThanheiser et al. (2018) [95]
Thoms et al. (2022) [96]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Harusato, A.; Kato, M. Mechanisms of Generation and Ecological Impacts of Nano- and Microplastics from Artificial Turf Systems in Sports Facilities. Environments 2025, 12, 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12040109

AMA Style

Harusato A, Kato M. Mechanisms of Generation and Ecological Impacts of Nano- and Microplastics from Artificial Turf Systems in Sports Facilities. Environments. 2025; 12(4):109. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12040109

Chicago/Turabian Style

Harusato, Akihito, and Masashi Kato. 2025. "Mechanisms of Generation and Ecological Impacts of Nano- and Microplastics from Artificial Turf Systems in Sports Facilities" Environments 12, no. 4: 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12040109

APA Style

Harusato, A., & Kato, M. (2025). Mechanisms of Generation and Ecological Impacts of Nano- and Microplastics from Artificial Turf Systems in Sports Facilities. Environments, 12(4), 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12040109

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop