Artificial turf pitches (ATPs) provide year-round access to grassroots sports in the Nordics. However, synthetic infill from ATPs are estimated to be amongst the largest sources of intentional microplastics in the Nordics. In September 2023, the EU adopted a ban, which bans the sale of loose infill containing microplastics in ATPs starting October 2031. Which ban-compliant alternative ATP systems are optimal for use in the Nordics now needs to be determined.
The Nordic Council has therefor commissioned this preparatory project to provide a basis for a larger project to find optimal whole ATP systems without rubber or plastic infill that are functional, environmentally friendly, and cost effective for children’s, youth, and grassroots sports. The aim of this project was to summarize existing knowledge and identify knowledge gaps within the following topics: * Existing systems used in the Nordics * Type of systems best suited for Nordic conditions and use * Operation, maintenance and best practices to accommodate Nordic conditions * Life cycle analysis (LCA) for environmental impacts of the various systems * Life cycle cost (LCC) estimates of the various sport surface systems * Easily available existing knowledge about the health effects of the various systems.
Information was collected both from the literature (primary and grey) and from stakeholders, which included representatives from municipalities, football associations/clubs, manufacturers, and waste management companies, via surveys, interviews, and a digital workshop. Only 1-15% of current ATPs in each Nordic country currently consist of alternative non-rubber/plastic systems. Both the literature and stakeholders indicate a current lack of testing and experience with alternatives, as many alternative systems have only been in use for a short period of time. Stakeholders indicated that no current alternatives are comparable in performance to styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) infill.
In addition, most if not all alternatives are prone to freezing in cold temperatures. It was pointed out that even within the Nordics, conditions vary and may require different alternatives in different locations. Cork was identified as the most comparable alternative in terms of function to SBR infill, both by the literature and by most stakeholders. Several people mentioned that cork works well in the summer but can freeze in winter. Although infill-free ATPs are attractive in that they remove the need for infill altogether and may have reduced maintenance requirements, it is unclear if they provide sufficient performance or function well in winter. However, some stakeholders indicated that they believe infill-free systems will likely become as good as other alternative infill systems due to product development. However, other stakeholders indicated infill-free ATPs do not work well. Explanations included reduced lifetimes due to faster deterioration and wear, need for increased fiber density (more plastic), and reduced performance (lower player satisfaction and skin abrasion). Both the literature and stakeholders have also raised the concern that non-infill ATPs could potentially release more microplastics originating from grass fibers than traditional ATPs; however, this is uncertain.
In terms of assessing and developing optimal alternative ATPs, both the literature and stakeholders underscored the need to consider the ATP system as a whole. Attention is often focused solely upon the infill, but it has been shown that other components are particularly important for maintaining adequate function in alternative systems. For example, a good shock-dampening layer has been shown to maintain good function when alternative infills are used in place of SBR infill. Maintenance and end-of-life procedures for alternative systems are lacking. This was clear from both the literature and stakeholders. This is likely in large part due to limited long-term experience with alternative ATPs.
The Norwegian pilot study, KG2021, suggests that there is less needed operation and maintenance with alternative infill compared to SBR infill, in part due to reduced refilling costs, and the perception that infill stays put to a greater extent. But this could also be due to the use of higher grass fiber density carpets in the pilots tested. Notably, infill-free ATPs are likely easier to recycle since they contain fewer material types (yle, 2024), but in general end-of-life procedures are unclear. It is also often mentioned that bio-based infills have potential for material breakdown and insects but this has not been assessed. Generally, the literature mentions the following three main areas of concern regarding the environmental impacts of ATPs: microplastics, climate change, and chemicals.
While alternative ATPs aim to address microplastic concerns associated with traditional infill systems, their overall environmental impacts are not yet well understood. Results from the review of the LCA literature shows that there is no agreement among the studies on which alternative infill is preferable from an environmental perspective. However, this is likely due to a lack of consensus on how artificial turf LCAs should be performed. The newly released PEFCR (ESTC, 2024) might solve this problem in the near future. The PEFCR follows the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) method and defines how to perform consistent LCAs of ATPs. This should facilitate comparable LCA studies, which will allow more transparent and standardized assessment of alternative ATPs. The full costs of different alternatives remain unclear as alternative systems are relatively new and have therefor only been in use for relatively short periods of time. The literature indicated that costs of alternative ATPs can vary significantly depending on the quality of materials, the type of infill, the presence of a shock-absorbing layer, installation requirements, and regional market conditions. Oslo Economics 2023 estimated investment costs for SBR infill ATPs between NOK 2.5 and 3.5 million compared to estimated investment costs for olive, cork/coconut, or no infill alternatives between NOK 3.5 to 7 million. In addition, maintenance and operations costs vary. A stakeholder mentioned that although non-infill systems are more expensive to buy, over time they end up the most cost-effective due to lower maintenance costs, zero infill costs, and cheaper recycling.
There were few results from the limited LCC literature available. Stakeholder surveys indicated that many respondents consider different alternatives to be similar in cost and maintenance, although more expensive than traditional SBR ATPs. Notably, another challenge that became clear from the workshop, is that ATPs develop/change rapidly, and so results from longer studies assessing different specific ATP systems, can quickly become obsolete. However, for the same reason, much of the data used today regarding ATPs needs to be updated. In conclusion, the project identified the following as the main knowledge gaps regarding alternative ATPs. * Function: Performance comparison of current alternative ATPs * Cost: Life Cycle Cost (LCC) comparison of alternative ATPs * Environmental impact: Comparable life cycle analysis (LCA) comparison of alternative ATPs * Lifetime: comparison of how long different alternative ATPs last * Maintenance: optimized methods and guidelines for different alternative ATPs * End-of-life processes: information of current processes and development of safe and sustainable processes * Health (human and environmental): determine if alternative ATP materials contain properties or substances that pose a health risk to humans or the environment incl. possible microplastic release