Portsmouth’s problems are illustrative of the turmoil surrounding artificial turf projects.
Often scrutinized for the use of crumb rubber infill, which can contain neurotoxic metals like lead, plastic fields are drawing new fire due to PFAS even as manufacturers move away from crumb rubber.
Prized for their ability to repel moisture, PFAS prevent plastic blades of fake grass from sticking to manufacturing equipment. Documents from PFAS manufacturer 3M Co. show the company recommends up to 1,000 parts per million of certain compounds to aid in such processing. A consultant for the synthetic turf industry said last year that the chemicals PVDF and PVDF-HFP are used in manufacturing, before later telling E&E News that PVDF-HFP was the only compound used and that it would not break down (Greenwire, Dec. 8, 2021).
But the actual research underpinning the health effects of chemicals like PVDF and PVDF-HFP is scant. An October 2020 study raised questions about the environmental and health implications of PVDF, with additional research indicating that chemical can break down in the presence of ultraviolet light.
Whether PVDF-HFP poses similar concerns is unknown.
In a statement, the Synthetic Turf Council said it did not have information on which specific fluoropolymers might be used as processing aids.
“With the widespread use and availability of PFAS in the environment from many other sources, there is always the possibility of PFAS contamination when testing synthetic turf products,” the group said, emphasizing that the compounds used in the extrusion process are “not the PFAS compounds of concern associated with groundwater and soil contamination.”
Despite expressing confidence in turf safety, however, STC said that some members are working on PFAS alternatives in order to meet market demand.
Turf proponents have cited the presence of PVDF-HFP in surgical sutures and medical devices as evidence that its use in artificial fields should be acceptable. Some toxicologists and other scientists have pushed back, noting that the conditions present on a turf field are very different. Testing meant to imitate the impact of decades of use on turf has shown other PFAS compounds present, which some scientists say could mean that PVDF-HFP can break down into more concerning compounds, like the PFOS found in Portsmouth’s field.
That reality has raised red flags for the Icahn School of Medicine Children’s Environmental Health Center. The team has written letters to municipalities weighing whether to invest in turf, discouraging the decision over concerns about exposure risks for children.
Sarah Evans, a faculty member at Mount Sinai Children’s Environmental Health Center, also highlighted the many unknowns that surround most PFAS. “[It’s] a very stable bond that persists in the environment and builds up in the body,” she said. “We suspect most of the chemicals in that class are going to have similar effects. The absence of evidence of harm is not evidence of absence of harm.”
Chemical exposure can be particularly concerning for children. Evans expressed concern about “additive and multiplicative avenues of exposure” from children who might be exposed to PFAS from turf and other sources, like drinking water, that could ultimately harm small bodies.
Skin contact is not the only way that athletes or kids could be exposed to chemicals in the turf. They could also accidentally ingest the compounds if they touch their mouths after touching the turf.
“I would say we need to, to the greatest degree possible, restrict exposure to these chemicals,” she said.
