Mark will be submitting additional posts on this topic (ed. note)
In response to test results by the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (NJDHSS) on artifical turf fields in New Jersey the CDC issued a health advisory on June 18th, 2008. In addtion to the background story on what prompted the testing by NJDHSS and limts/scope of testing, there were recommendations for testing artifical turf and general recommendations on the use of fields with Artifical Turf.
This is an official
CDC HEALTH ADVISORY
Distributed via Health Alert Network
Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 16:10 EDT (4:10 PM EDT)
CDCHAN-00275-2008-06-18-ADV-N
Potential Exposure to Lead in Artificial Turf:
Public Health Issues, Actions, and Recommendations
Public Health Issues
In the course of conducting a routine health investigation at a metal facility in Newark, NJ, the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (NJDHSS) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) tested a nearby community athletic field for lead contamination. Samples taken from the field showed high levels of lead in the field dust, but the lead did not come from the scrap metal facility.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is partnering with its sister-agency, ATSDR, to monitor this situation because of CDC’s expertise in lead poisoning prevention.
After determining that the lead source was the artificial turf, NJDHSS began to test other artificial turf fields looking for similar high lead levels in artificial turf fibers. These findings raised concerns about potentially high lead levels in artificial turf used in other locations including fields and playgrounds. NJDHSS tested a limited sample of athletic fields in New Jersey. Any questions regarding the specific fields tested should be directed to NJDHSS.
As determined by NJDHSS, limited sampling of additional athletic fields in New Jersey and commercial products indicates that artificial turf made of nylon or nylon/polyethylene blend fibers contains levels of lead that pose a potential public health concern. Tests of artificial turf fields made with only polyethylene fibers showed that these fields contained very low levels of lead.
Information provided by NJDHSS to CDC and ATSDR indicates that some of the fields with elevated lead in either dust and/or turf fiber samples were weathered and visibly dusty. Fields that are old, that are used frequently, and that are exposed to the weather break down into dust as the turf fibers are worn or demonstrate progressive signs of weathering, including fibers that are abraded, faded or broken. These factors should be considered when evaluating the potential for harmful lead exposures from a given field.
The risk for harmful lead exposure is low from new fields with elevated lead levels in their turf fibers because the turf fibers are still intact and the lead is unlikely to be available for harmful exposures to occur. As the turf ages and weathers, lead is released in dust that could then be ingested or inhaled, and the risk for harmful exposure increases. If exposures do occur, CDC currently does not know how much lead the body will absorb; however, if enough lead is absorbed, it can cause neurological development symptoms (e.g. deficits in IQ). Additional tests are being performed by NJDHSS to help us better understand the absorption of lead from these products.
In general, children less than 6 years old are more likely to be affected by lead than adults because of increased contact with lead sources in the environment, including lead contaminated house dust and soil. Children also absorb lead more easily. Children’s developing nervous systems are also more susceptible to the adverse health effects of lead including developmental delay and behavioral problems.
It should be emphasized that although turf testing has been limited to the state of New Jersey, no cases of elevated blood lead levels in children have been linked to artificial turf on athletic fields in New Jersey and elsewhere. Concerned parents should talk to their child’s pediatrician about potential and known sources of lead in their children’s environment and whether their children should have a blood lead test. This is a simple blood test that is paid for by most private insurers and by Medicaid.
NJDHSS has asked the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to investigate this potential problem and CDC and ATSDR are currently waiting for information from CPSC to help guide future public health recommendations and actions.
Interim Public Health Actions Related to Testing Artificial Turf Products and Reducing Potential Exposures to Lead
NJDHHS’s testing of artificial turf fields was limited and only sampled turf containing nylon. Since NJDHHS, CDC and ATSDR did not test fields composed of substances other than nylon and nylon/polyethelene blend, we do not know if lead is also a component in other types of artificial turf. Additionally, not necessarily all turf made of nylon contains elevated amounts of lead.
CDC has long recommended the elimination of all nonessential uses of lead. Because it is unclear whether all artificial turf contains lead at this time, CDC and ATSDR only recommend testing artificial turf fields that appear worn or weathered.
As a precaution, until further guidance is available from CPSC and until we have more information about the absorption of lead from artificial turf products and its capability of harm, CDC and ATSDR recommend:
• Testing turf that has fibers that are abraded, faded or broken, contains visible dust, and that is made from nylon or nylon-blend fibers. Information about testing is provided later in this alert.
• If the dust contains more than 400 ppm lead, do not allow turf access for children under the age of 6 years.
• If access is restricted, care should be taken to ensure that alternative sites contain lead levels less than 400 ppm.
• Not testing turf made from polyethylene-only fibers. This recommendation is based on currently available data.
• Not testing turf made from nylon or nylon blends that is not worn and does not contain visible dust. These fields should be routinely monitored for wear and dust generation.
• Replacing fields as soon as practicable if worn and dusty, as a precautionary measure.
CDC recommends testing children’s blood lead levels in accordance with state guidelines. Concerned parents/caregivers should consult their medical providers for further information.
General Recommendations on the Use of Fields with Artificial Turf
At this time, CDC does not yet understand the potential risks associated with exposure to dust from worn artificial turf. The following precautions can be taken to minimize any potential risk.
• Field managers should consider implementing dust-suppression measures. Suggestions for dust-suppression methods can be found at NJDHSS’s website, which is provided in the additional information section.
• Children ages 6 and younger are most susceptible to lead’s harmful health effects. To protect the public, in particular young children, consider posting signs indicating that:
1. After playing on the field, individuals are encouraged to perform aggressive hand and body washing for at least 20 seconds using soap and warm water.
2. Clothes worn on the field should be taken off and turned inside out as soon as possible after using the field to avoid tracking contaminated dust to other places. In vehicles, people can sit on a large towel or blanket if it is not feasible to remove their clothes. These clothes, towels, and blankets should be washed separately and shoes worn on the field should be kept outside of the home.
3. Eating while on the field or turf product is discouraged.
4. Avoid contaminating drinking containers with dust and fibers from the field. When not drinking, close them and keep them in a bag, cooler, or other covered container on the side of the field.
12 responses so far ↓
Greg Hatala // September 29, 2009 at 6:43 am |
Sorry, but I think this is another instance of overreaction. Let me see – weren’t we supposed to be experiencing a major, earth-shattering “pandemic” right about now, according to the “experts,” or was it the last time there were flu cases, or the time before? Perhaps we should eliminate sports altogether, since it’s been PROVEN that kids sometimes get hurt (sometimes very seriously) by playing sports? No offense intended, but I think this whole argument against field-turf fields is similar to “such-and-such substance causes cancer, because lab tests showed that when a mouse is fed 20 times its body weight in the stuff….”
Morgansh // September 29, 2009 at 11:26 am |
just another reason why good green grass should NEVER be replaced with a fake field.
proper field management is al that is needed to maintain a healthy and grass filed field.
unfortunately, people are too lazy and want the quick fix.
anybody who saw Krausche field this spring saw that this was not a field that needed to be torn up and replaced with plastic.
Morgansh // September 29, 2009 at 11:28 am |
and P.S.
overreaction?!?!?
this is not a letter from an hysterical parent, its a very dry report from THE CDC!
marie kushnir // September 29, 2009 at 3:53 pm |
“A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control found that athletes who had suffered artificial turf burns were seven times more likely to develop MRSA infection. The reason is partly that the burns open the skin to the opportunity for infection. But many studies, most notably the study conducted by the Journal of Clinical Microbiology in 2000, have found that MRSA survives better on artificial turf than on other surfaces. Specifically, the staphylococcus survives longest, up to 90 days, on polyethylene plastic, which is a plastic used in synthetic turf fibers.”
Greg Hatala // September 29, 2009 at 4:30 pm |
Morgan, a grass field is NOT a simple matter to maintain. Rutgers University, for example, USED to have a grass field in the football stadium (which was NOT used for concerts or other such events), and even with the entire Cook Agricultural College input, it would get torn up badly from use and not recover without extended periods of dormancy. And as far as last Spring at Krausche Field, I was there regularly, umpirig games – the field flooded badly with the lightest rain, and did NOT dry out in anything resembling a timely manner. THAT was pretty dangerous for players.
Actually, a grass field needs a tremendous amount of TLC, something it doesn’t get when the maintenance is subcontracted out. And my point about the CDC? I don’t think the CDC is omnipotent; recall that any number of things in this world were banned after “studies” that were later shown to be skewed. Remember Alar on apples? You’d have to drink the stuff by the gallon the get the “dangerous” effects that were cited as being “harmful.” Same thing with saccharine. Point? Far too many “unhealthy” things turn out to be based in “studies” that are a lot of alarm ringing, but not a lot of reality. CERTAINLY lead ingestion is harmful; Please show me a study as to exactly what volume of “lead” is being inhaled/ingested from a field turf field under normal conditions, not hypothetical ones.
Morgansh // September 29, 2009 at 11:52 pm |
i was at many games at krausche field this spring and it was in fine shape. As for drainage, that is problem fixed at MUCH more reasonable cost than the abomination that is occurring now.
its a disgrace that natural grass got torn up for a plastic mat.
the people who approved this should be ashamed of themselves.
I bet they also recycle and like to think that they are “green”.
Steve // September 30, 2009 at 10:29 am |
Maybe they just need to vaccuum the artificial turf fields before each game…
Barbara Habeeb // October 1, 2009 at 2:58 pm |
My opinion…
Anything natural is far better than anything artificial. I don’t think anyone has gotten sick from grass poisoning yet, have they?
The money from the County SHOULD have been used for open space, but of course I shouldn’t go there should I?
npadministrator // October 2, 2009 at 7:06 am |
Well, technically that field IS open space and they used it on that field. Given that the field happens to be prime commercial property, I think I’d rather have them use it on keeping it an open space. It has come up for discussion more than once to find a different place to have the football field (including the Ballas property when he was trying to sell it) to free up the current field for sale to commercial endeavors that would generate tax revenue.
Greg Hatala // October 2, 2009 at 6:54 am |
Barbara, you’re right about the money, of course. But, unfortunately, that isn’t what was done.
All I’m trying to do is point out here that any study can be found that supports a position one wants to believe in. Has anyone, for example, done a study on possible dangerous elevated lead levels in pro athletes who have been playing on field turf since it was first introduced? Wouldn’t THAT be a far more useful study? I haven’t heard about it yet, but if it were done and showed that there was indeed a cause and effect relationship, the point would be very well made. But to base health scare tactics on surmision has been done far too often in the past, and it has gotten out of hand. I reiterate — parents have more to worry about from injuries suffered playing football than they apparently do from the field the game is played on. If the concern is that great, than perhaps the child shouldn’t play football.
And as far as replacing real grass with artificial, well, I for one would in some instances relish the situation, such as when young kids were playing baseball in CALF high grass at East End because it wasn’t getting mowed regularly during the school year. No one seemed to be bothered by that when it was happening.
cu // October 23, 2009 at 9:04 pm |
“Renovations on the nearly 70-year-old field were made possible by a $1 million Recreational Grant that was awarded by the Somerset County Board of Chosen Freeholders through the Open Space, Farmland and Historic Preservation Trust Fund.”
Any more $ for that Villa Maria property? Park or pool would be dandy…
npadministrator // October 24, 2009 at 2:18 am |
We’ll never know because the council won’t make an official application because their “word of mouth” info says there’s no money for North Plainfield (or the money there is/was went to the field–depends on who you ask)