Outlook
re: Agenda Item 1 on Municipal Services Committee meeting on June 23, 2026 From Myung-Soo Seok
Date Man 6/22/2026 5:50 PM
To dtyclerk <[email protected]>,· Bernard, Nicole (Dist1) <[email protected]>,· DerBoghossian, Megheti <[email protected]>; Barrios, Lisa <[email protected]>; Thyret, Pam <[email protected]> Robert Smith < [email protected] >; Tony Trinidad <[email protected]>,· Stephanie Van Slomski <[email protected]>; Vince Ramos <[email protected] >; Matt Weir < [email protected] >; Peter Escalera <[email protected]>
Cc
I 6 attachments (6 MB)
City of Pasadena opposition letter final draft.docx; TCG Flyer_DC36_ClientReview.pdf; TurfTemperature_TenCate O525.pdf; 2026 natural grass synthetic cost comparison.pdf; PFAS Fact Sheet_Final (1).pdf; TenCate PFAS StatementJ .9.24 (1).pdf; Some people who received this message don't often get email from. Learn why this is important [A] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button (PAB). For more information about the PAB view article "KB001 1474" on the DolT portal.
On behalf of the Painters and Allied Trades District Council 36, we would like to resubmit our previous letter and several supporting documents for our argument for supporting synthetic turf of support for synthetic turf replacement at Villa Parke and Robinson Park.
As we have stated at City Council meeting previously, current arguments against synthetic turf are based on much dated facts and technology. There are cutting edge sustainability technology that are in use in dealing with PFAS, heat mitigation and recycling. There are synthetic turf products that do not use PFAS in its manufacturing process. In addition, when comparing cost and usable hours of natural versus synthetic turf, you will clearly see that synthetic turf products allow the children and student athletes to have more hours of use.
In closing, we heard that there may be a possibility for the City of Pasadena to consider a citywide ban of synthetic turf. We strongly oppose this as a union that represents the professional installers of synthetic turf. We would consider this type of ban to be a job killer for our members that is not warranted.
We look forward to continuing this conversation during the MSC meeting on June 23, 2026.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best,
Myung-Soo Seok, on behalf of Painters and Allied Trades District Council 36 M2 Strategies
^
ONE UNION
MsJU'i
•=1»
in-aa
Painters «& Allied Trades
District Council 36
Luis F. Robles
Business Manager
DRYWALL FINISHERS, FLOORLAYERS, GLAZIERS, PAINTERS, TRADESHOW & SIGNCRAFT June 4, 2025
Mayor Victor Gordo
City Councilmember Tyron Hampton
Councilmember Rick Cole
Councilmember Justin Jones
Councilmember Gene Masuda
Councilmember Jason Lyon
Re: Proposed Ban on Artificial Turf in City of Pasadena Dear Mayor Gordo and Councilmembers:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the discussion of ban of synthetic turf in Pasadena.
We are a labor union that represents workers that install synthetic turf throughout California.
While we appreciate the genuine concerns that the members of the City Council have, an outright ban ofsynthtic turf is both irresponsible and unnecessary in alleviating environmental concerns. In particular, there seems to be an assumption that all artificial turf manufactured with same materials and that is not the case. Case in point is the artificial grass manufactured by TenCate.
TenCate is the leading manufacturer of artificial turf in the world. Their artificial turf has proactively eliminated PFAS materials in 2023 before any PFAS legislation has been passed. This eliminates widespread concern ofPFAS impact on the environment.
In order to address the concern of harmful chemicals leeching into the ground water, TenCate eliminated rubber infill with GeoCool infill which is made from a renewable inorganic mineral that is 100% renewable and non-toxic. Other organic and natural infills made with cork or walnut shells have been incorporated.
In addressing temperature of the artificial grass, TenCate has incorporated non-toxic and natural materials that cool down the artificial grass that does not use water. This leads to millions of gallons of water being conserved each year. These materials allow the current models of synthetic turf to reduce temperature on the field. You can see from the study that we are enclosing with this letter, you will see that the difference between natural grass and current synthetic turf is not great.
Finally, TenCate is actively recycling end of life artificial turf. TenCate is the first in United States to recycle old synthetic turn into feedstock that can be used to create new turf and other products.
While we commend the Councilmembers for initiating this important discussion about the impact of synthetic grass on the environment, an outright ban will lead to loss of small businesses and jobs that were encouraged to be created during our drought crisis. Our union will lose thousands of jobs throughout California if such ban is passed throughout the state.
Rather than banning an entire industry, implementation of thoughtful regulation of eliminating harmful materials and creating an industry standard should be considered. In fact, such discussions are taking place in many municipalities in State of CA, including in the City of Los Angeles.
We look forward to speaking with you as you prepare to hear this issue in your future City Council meeting.
I can be reached at
Thank you.
Suii,»..
-<^0r^•V
Tony De Trinidad
Government Affairs Representative
International Union of Painters & Allied Trades District Council 36 1155 Corporate Center Drive, Monterey Park, CA 91754TEL: (626) 584-9925FAX: (626) 584-1949 REGULATE TURF. DON’T BAN IT.
• Supports thousands of jobs
• Offers 2000+ hours of play annually versus 800-1200
from natural grass1
• Directly contributes to a $52.2 billion sports tourism industry2
SYNTHETIC TURF PROVIDES CRITICAL ACCESS TO
PLAY WHERE WATER AND SPACE ARE LIMITED.
A natural grass field is more resource-heavy
than turf: it needs up to 2 inches of water a
week3, (that’s ~1,000,000 gallons per year)
and 87–217 pounds of nitrogen fertilizer per
1,000 square feet per year.4
REGULATIONS CAN KEEP CONCERNS AT BAY AND TURF IN PLAY
PROBLEM REALITY SOLUTION
Rubber infill
PFAS exposure
Plastic waste
Microplastics
Alternatives to rubber infill exist, like coconut or cork, and some top performing fields don’t require infill5 at all.
Incentivize alternative and no-infill
systems in new installs.
Fiber loss varies by system type, maintenance,
and age. Emerging data shows lower shedding in
infill-free systems.
Establish monitoring standards, maintenance
requirements, and clear replacement thresholds.
Turf is not single use like plastic packaging; it can offer years of community benefits. Recycling technologies are advancing but require policy support.
Require systems to be designed for recycling and
mandate end-of-life recycling plans.
This OEHHA study6 found no significant health risks
from exposure to synthetic turf. PFAS are also found in natural grass fields due to fertilizers and pesticides.
Prohibit added PFAS in synthetic turf and
natural fields.
Let’s work towards better turf — recyclable, PFAS-free, with no infill — and keep jobs and play in our communities.
PROTECT JOBS, PLAY, AND COMMUNITY ACCESS
1000s
of jobs
2000+
hours of play annually
365/24/7
play in all climates
$52.2 billion
sports tourism industry
1 https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/community-services/2025-08-13-reduced-size-for- posting-palo-alto-turf-athletic-fields-draft.pdf
2 https://www.sportstravelmagazine.com/report-sports-related-travel-generated-52-2-billion-impact-in-2023 3 https://safesportsfields.cals.cornell.edu/routine-care/watering/ 4 https://mda.maryland.gov/siteassets/pages/fertilizer/tt119.pdf 5 https://geosurfaces.com/pivot-by-tencate/
6 https://oehha.ca.gov/sites/default/files/media/2025-03/DraftTurfReport031325.pdf
736 Market St. Suite 1700, Chattanooga, TN 37402 | Page 1
Heat and Temperature
Impacts of Synthetic Turf
Prepared for New York City
Department of Parks & Recreation
by Dr. Colin Young, PhD | TenCate Grass
736 Market St. Suite 1700, Chattanooga, TN 37402 | Page 2
Table of Contents
• Introduction 3
• Thermal Characteristics of Turf 4
• Cooling Technologies and Modern Innovations 5
• Heat Stress (not only Surface Temperatures) 6
• Urban Heat Island (UHI) 7
• Policy Implications and Future Research 8
• Conclusion 9
• References 10
• Appendix 11
736 Market St. Suite 1700, Chattanooga, TN 37402 | Page 3
Heat and Temperature Impacts of Synthetic Turf
Introduction
Synthetic turf fields have become a popular solution for recreational, educational, and sports facilities due to their ability to provide consistent play surfaces and significantly higher availability than natural grass. Unlike grass fields, which are often closed due to drought, rain, poor drainage, or recovery time, turf fields can withstand intensive use. A growing body of research from municipal parks departments and public agencies supports the operational and economic benefits of synthetic turf:
A study from the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) and field audits by San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department (SFRPD) report synthetic fields offer 2,000 –3,000 hours of annual availability, compared to 300 – 816 hours for natural grass, depending on maintenance schedules and regional climate.
City of New York Parks & Recreation reported that synthetic fields provided 5 to 8 times more usable hours per year and enabled year-round programming.
These benefits are particularly valuable in hot, arid, or drought -affected regions where natural grass cannot survive without excessive irrigation. However, the expansion of turf has raised important questions about thermal performance, especially in hot c limates. This document examines the thermal characteristics of synthetic turf, its contributions to heat stress and the urban heat island effect and compares traditional turf systems with modern cooling solutions using peer-reviewed studies, municipal research, and laboratory testing data.
Unlike natural grass, which maintains a relatively stable and cool surface temperature through evapotranspiration, traditional synthetic turf lacks organic moisture regulation mechanisms. As a result, legacy turf surfaces can reach extreme temperatures during sunny weather, often exceeding the ambient air temperature by more than 30°C (86°F).
Studies have recorded surface temperatures on traditional synthetic turf as high as 62.5°C (144.5°F), whereas adjacent natural grass remained under 37°C (98.6°F). In sunny climates such as Arizona, Texas, and Southern California, synthetic turf fields have been recorded at temperatures above 70°C (158°F), making them hazardous for direct human contact.
While some older synthetic turf systems , particularly those using dense, black SBR rubber infill , have been shown to reach high surface temperatures, it is important to recognize that not all turf systems are the same. Advances in materials science and system engineering have produced a new generation of synthetic turf fields that perform far better in terms of thermal regulation. Modern systems utilize cooling infills made from GeoCool, cork, mineral blends; or innovative system design such as non -performance infill turf like Pivot ™ or water storage under the field. These features significantly reduce surface temperatures and, more importantly, lower Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) readings, bringing heat stress risk levels close to those observed on natural grass fields under the same environmental conditions.
This distinction is essential for public health and policy. Evaluating synthetic turf as a monolithic category can lead to misleading conclusions about heat safety. In reality, a well-designed, modern synthetic turf system can offer both the durability and high usage benefits of turf and the thermal safety characteristics associated with natural grass. As municipalities, schools, and sports organizations consider future installations, they should demand thermal performance data, especially WBGT assessments, and prioritize systems that actively manage surface heat. With the right design choices, synthetic turf can be both safe and sustainable, even in hot climates.
736 Market St. Suite 1700, Chattanooga, TN 37402 | Page 4
Thermal Characteristics of Turf
The primary cause of heat build -up in synthetic turf systems is solar radiation. Unlike natural grass, which uses moisture and evapotranspiration to cool its surface, synthetic turf lacks any biological mechanisms for heat dissipation. Instead, it absorbs solar energy through its plastic fibers, rubber or polymeric infill, and underlying base layers. This absorbed energy is stored in the materials and gradually re-radiated as heat, causing surface temperatures to rise, especially under direct sunlight.
Material choice plays a pivotal role in the thermal behavior of turf. Polyethylene, the most common yarn material used in turf fibers, has low thermal conductivity and high heat retention, meaning it traps heat rather than disperses it.
Traditional SBR (st yrene-butadiene rubber) infill is particularly problematic due to its dark color and low reflectivity, which makes it highly efficient at absorbing infrared energy. Moreover, SBR has low emissivity and thermal diffusivity, which means it stores heat and releases it slowly, even after the sun has gone down. This creates a thermal lag effect, where the surface remains dangerously hot well into the evening.
Other design elements also influence heat accumulation. Turf density, pile height, and infill depth can increase the surface area exposed to sunlight, further intensifying heat absorption. Underneath, impermeable or compacted base layers inhibit airflow, r educing opportunities for convective cooling. In contrast, modern systems that include breathable pads, reflective pigments, and lighter infills (such as cork or mineral -based alternatives) offer significant improvements in both surface temperature and subsurface heat dynamics.
Understanding these thermal dynamics is critical when evaluating the health and safety implications of synthetic turf installations. It also highlights why legacy systems with high -heat materials must not be conflated with today’s engineered solutions, whi ch are increasingly designed with thermal performance and heat stress mitigation in mind.
Below are some examples of recent innovations to mitigate the heat of turf.
736 Market St. Suite 1700, Chattanooga, TN 37402 | Page 5
Cooling Technologies and Modern Innovations
To address the longstanding concern of excessive heat buildup on synthetic turf, manufacturers have developed a variety of innovations aimed at significantly lowering surface temperatures and improving heat stress performance.
One of the most effective areas of advancement has been the development of alternative infill materials. Traditional black SBR rubber infill is known for its high heat retention, but modern infills , such as cork, coconut husk, wood fiber, and mineral -based blends , have much lower ther mal mass and higher emissivity. These properties allow them to absorb less heat during the day and release it more efficiently, resulting in a measurable reduction in both surface temperature and underlying heat stress.
Among these, GeoCool® infill has shown particularly promising results. Designed from natural mineral compounds, GeoCool is engineered to remain cooler than traditional infills by resisting heat absorption and facilitating evaporative cooling when moisture is present. Field testing has demonstrated that turf systems using GeoCool can achieve surface temperatures up to 30 –40°F (17– 22°C) cooler than comparable fields with SBR infill. When paired with breathable underlayers and high-albedo turf fibers, these sy stems show WBGT levels close to those recorded on natural grass fields, even in warm climates.
In addition to infill innovation, yarn technology has advanced significantly. Use of pigments and materials with higher solar reflectance (albedo), reducing the amount of solar radiation converted into heat. Yarn shape also plays a role, textured or ribbed fibers can reduce the surface area directly exposed to the sun and improve airflow between the blades, helping to disperse heat more effectively.
A parallel trend in the industry is the rise of non-infill systems, which eliminate the need for loose particles altogether such as Pivot ™. This system often relies on dense, structured turf piles combined with integrated padding layers for shock absorption and play performance. By removing the infill, particularly heat-retaining rubber, these systems avoid one of the primary drivers of extreme surface temperatures. Non-infill turf systems are increasingly paired with evaporative base layers or capillary ir rigation systems, particularly in European cities focused on sustainability and climate resilience.
Together, these innovations represent a significant leap forward in managing the thermal behavior of synthetic turf.
When properly selected and designed, these systems provide a surface that remains far cooler than legacy rubber - filled fields , making them more comfortable and safer for athletes, children, and the broader public. These are not concepts but have been used successful for several years all around the USA.
Other interesting innovations in urban research from the Netherlands (KWR Water Research Institute and City of Amsterdam) showed that new cooling turf systems can significantly reduce this, bringing peak surface temperatures close to natural grass levels by integrating subsurface water storage and evaporative cooling. Subsurface Capillary Irrigation Systems: Pioneered in Amsterdam, these systems store water beneath the field and use passive evaporation to reduce surface temperature significantly.
736 Market St. Suite 1700, Chattanooga, TN 37402 | Page 6
Heat Stress (not only Surface Temperatures)
Understanding heat stress requires more than just measuring how hot a surface gets. While peak surface temperatures on synthetic turf can be very high, especially on older systems with rubber infill , heat stress itself is a more complex condition influenced by multiple environmental factors, including temperature, humidity, wind speed, and solar radiation. In the United States, the most widely accepted and scientifically validated tool for assessing heat stress in sports and outdoor environments is the Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) index.
The WBGT is not the same as the regular air temperature. Instead, it combines measurements of ambient temperature, humidity, radiant heat (from sunlight), and wind speed into a single number that reflects the actual thermal stress on the human body. High humidity, for example, limits the body’s ability to cool itself through sweating, which makes even moderate temperatures more dangerous. WBGT helps coaches, athletic trainers, schools, and parks departments make informed decisions about when it’s safe to be active outdoors , regardless of whether the field is made of turf or natural grass.
National organizations like the National Athletic Trainers’ Association (NATA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommend using WBGT thresholds to guide sports practice, games, and outdoor activities, especially for children and adolescents who are more vulnerable to heat -related illnesses. Many states, including Georgia and Texas, have adopted mandatory WBGT monitoring protocols for high school sports, requiring activity modifications, hydration breaks, or cancellations when WBGT levels reach high or extreme zones.
In simple terms, WBGT offers a real-world snapshot of heat risk, not just a number on a thermometer. It considers how hard the body has to work to cool itself, based on actual environmental conditions. This is why modern turf systems should not be judged s olely on peak surface temperature. Instead, systems should be evaluated on how they affect overall heat stress, including WBGT outcomes during peak-use times. Fortunately, as covered above, many of today’s advanced turf systems using alternative infills, lighter yarns, and cooling designs now show WBGT values that closely match or even improve upon natural grass fields.
736 Market St. Suite 1700, Chattanooga, TN 37402 | Page 7
Urban heat island (UHI)
The urban heat island (UHI) effect describes how urban environments become significantly warmer than surrounding rural areas due to the widespread use of heat -absorbing surfaces like asphalt, concrete, and dark roofing materials.
Traditional synthetic turf systems, especially those that use black SBR rubber infill , can contribute to this problem by absorbing and re-radiating large amounts of solar energy, leading to elevated surface and ambient temperatures in their immediate vicinity.
However, it is important to recognize that not all turf contributes equally to the heat island effect. Modern synthetic turf systems have been specifically engineered to reduce their thermal impact. By replacing rubber infill with light - colored, low-heat materials such as cork, wood blends, or mineral -based alternatives, and by using reflective yarns and breathable base layers, these systems significantly lower surface temperatures. Some newer designs also incorporate subsurface irrigation or passive cooling layers that mimic the cooling function of natural grass through evaporation, further reducing their contribution to localized heating.
Field research has shown that well -designed cooling turf systems can perform comparably to, or even better than, other urban surfaces like sand-filled tennis courts or light-colored concrete in terms of thermal load. Importantly, while legacy rubber -based fields may amplify the UHI effect, modern turf can act as a neutral or even mitigating surface when part of a thoughtfully designed urban landscape.
When evaluating the environmental impact of synthetic turf, it’s essential to distinguish between outdated systems that elevate urban heat and innovative systems that are actively engineered to counteract it. With the right materials and design features, synthetic turf can be a sustainable, heat-conscious solution for urban recreation areas.
Did you know:
While it’s true that turf is often warmer than natural grass, its surface temperature is generally lower than many other urban surfaces, such as asphalt, hard tennis courts, and various types of playgrounds and equipment.
Note: temperatures measured on a range of surface types on the same day all locations within 10 miles
736 Market St. Suite 1700, Chattanooga, TN 37402 | Page 8
Policy Implications and Future Research
The widespread use of turf in public settings necessitates clearer national -level guidelines for heat exposure. While voluntary standards and local protocols exist, there is no unified federal approach to synthetic turf heat safety in the United States.
Recommendations include:
1. Mandating WBGT-based monitoring for all turf sports events.
2. Designing turf systems with proven cooling technologies and reduced WBGT heat stress levels.
3. Updating building codes and urban development policies to address UHI impact from large-scale artificial turf installations using WBGT data.
4. Funding continued research into materials science for low -heat polymers and sustainable infill.
5. Balancing usability, water conservation, and heat safety.
736 Market St. Suite 1700, Chattanooga, TN 37402 | Page 9
Conclusion
The conversation around heat and synthetic turf is often oversimplified, focusing narrowly on surface temperature alone. While surface temperature is important, especially in the case of outdated turf systems that used black rubber infill, it does not provide a complete picture of heat risk. Heat stress is a multifactorial condition, influenced by humidity, wind, solar radiation, and surface properties, all of which are captured in the Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) index. This index is already used widely across the United States to guide decisions in youth sports and outdoor activity settings and should be the primary reference tool for evaluating field safety, regardless of surface type.
What is clear from current evidence is that modern turf systems are fundamentally different from legacy products.
Advances in infill composition, yarn materials, reflective coatings, and integrated cooling mechanisms mean that today’s best-performing synth etic turf fields can match or even outperform natural grass when it comes to thermal safety. WBGT measurements from controlled field tests consistently show that properly engineered turf systems remain within safe zones under the same conditions where older systems exceed critical thresholds.
At the same time, this issue is not binary. The discussion should not be reduced to “turf vs. grass,” but rather focused on performance, safety, and climate adaptability. Natural grass offers valuable ecological functions, but it also struggles in areas wi th water scarcity, high usage demands, or poor soil quality. Synthetic turf, when thoughtfully designed and maintained, can be a safe, sustainable solution, especially when paired with smart design strategies that address cooling and end-of-life impacts.
Further research is both necessary and valuable , not to delay progress, but to guide it. Policymakers, urban planners, and sports authorities should invest in comparative WBGT data to ensure decisions are based on science, not assumptions. The goal should not simply be to avoid heat, but to create safe, resilient outdoor spaces that serve people, protect public health, and respond to the realities of a changing climate.
736 Market St. Suite 1700, Chattanooga, TN 37402 | Page 10
References
1. Duffie JA, Beckman WA. Solar engineering of thermal processes. 4th ed. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2013.
2. McNitt AS, Petrunak DM. Evaluation of playing surface characteristics of various in -filled systems. University Park (PA): Penn State Center for Sports Surface Research; 2008.
3. Devitt DA, Fenstermaker LF, Young MH. Surface temperature, heat loading and spectral reflectance of artificial turfgrass. J Turfgrass Sports Surf Sci. 2007;83:68–81.
4. Grundstein A, Cooper E, Ferrara M, Knox JA. Prevalence of exertional heat stroke related policies for high school football players in the United States. Kinesiol Rev. 2015;4(3):209 –17.
5. Haselbach L. The engineering guide to LEED—New construction: Sustainable construction for engineers. New York (NY): McGraw Hill; 2010.
6. TenCate Grass. Temperature insights: USA turf research – August 2024. Internal Report. 2024.
7. KWR Water Research Institute; Municipality of Amsterdam. Smart sports field cooling via capillary irrigation: Case study report. Nieuwegein (NL): KWR; 2023.
8. San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department. Synthetic vs. natural turf field analysis. San Francisco (CA):
SFRPD; 2012.
9. New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. Synthetic turf usage guidelines. New York (NY): NYC Parks; 2013.
10. Brigham Young University. Surface temperature of synthetic vs. natural turf fields. Provo (UT): BYU; 2006.
11. American Academy of Pediatrics. Climatic heat stress and exercising children and adolescents: Policy statement.
Pediatrics. 2011;128(3):e741–47.
12. National Athletic Trainers’ Association. Exertional heat illnesses position statement. J Athl Train. 2015;50(9):986 – 1000.
13. Oke TR. Boundary layer climates. 2nd ed. London (UK): Routledge; 1987.
14. Cengel YA. Heat and mass transfer: A practical approach. 3rd ed. New York (NY): McGraw Hill; 2007.
15. Kalman P, Anis H. Thermal diffusivity of rubber materials. Polym Test. 2019;76:27 –34.
16. Berdahl P, Bretz SE. Preliminary survey of the solar reflectance of cool roofing materials. Energy Build. 1997;25(2):149–58.
736 Market St. Suite 1700, Chattanooga, TN 37402 | Page 11
Appendix: Data
GeoCool - surface temperature vs time exposure
736 Market St. Suite 1700, Chattanooga, TN 37402 | Page 12
Pivot, Pivot with GeoCool, and SBR Coparison - surface temperature vs time exposure
12 YEAR COST COMPARISON NATURAL GRASS PIVOT TURF
EXPENSE FOOTBALL/SOCCER FOOTBALL/SOCCER
Initial Installation 1,386,681$ 1,644,175$ Maintenance 50,000$ -$
Water Usage 20,000$ -$
Total Annual Maintenance Cost 70,000$ 1,000$ Total Cost of Ownership over 12 Years 2,226,681$ 1,656,175$ Total Hours Permitted Use in 12 Year Cycle* 5,808 42,432 Cost Per Hour of Use 383.38$ 39.03$ Natural grass installation and maintenance provided by Byrom-Davey, a leading installer of natural grass and artificial turf fields in Southern California.
Source: Study conducted by Tom Diehl of CHA Consulting examining actual costs of ownership of public natural grass sports fields in Los Gatos, CA. * Hours of use permitted calculations by CHA:
Natural Grass: 20 hours per week for 32 weeks per year, less 15% for rain, with downtime for resodding Pivot: 68 hours per week for 52 weeks per year, no rainouts, no downtime for replacement The Facts on Turf
#ProtectPlay
Say “NO” to unnecessary turf bans and restrictions.
Eliminating turf doesn’t make sense.
There have been numerous studies by government agencies, and there is not one single study citing health risks of artificial turf. Here is a partial list of agencies that have conducted studies citing no elevated health risk from artificial turf:
• The United States Environmental Protection Agency
• The US Consumer Product Safety Commission
• The US Centers for Disease Control
• Netherlands National Institute of Health and Environment • The European Chemicals Agency
• Connecticut Department of Public Health
Restricting turf doesn’t make sense. While concerns have been voiced about PFAS content in turf, microplastics, heat island effect and recyclability, the latest generation of turf already alleviates these issues. Here are some facts to know:
PFAS
• Turf is not a significant exposure point to PFAS. Importantly, TenCate manufactures turf without PFAS! Other brands of turf typically contain 100 parts per million or less (ppm).
• Many daily use items have far more PFAS content than turf. • Dental floss: up to 248,900 ppm
• Prescription medications: up to 50,000 ppm
• Makeup: up to 6,000 ppm
• “Natural” grass often requires fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides that may contain — or even be classified as — PFAS. Easily transported by irrigation and rain, they can enter soil and waterways, potentially contaminating precious and limited drinking water .
• There is absolutely NO evidence that any PFAS in water sources has ever come from turf. However , it is a certainty that there are PFAS in water sources that have come from chemicals used to maintain natural grass.
#ProtectPlay
Microplastics
New generations of turf don’t have infill. This eliminates migration of infill materials and reduces microplastic shedding to negligible amounts without the abrasion that causes fiber breakdown.
Heat Island Effect
Our newest turf, Pivot®, requires NO infill and hence does not act as a heat sink like traditional artificial turf fields with tons of rubber infill. Further , technologies like TenCate’s GeoCool™ cooling additive can lower turf temperatures significantly. GeoCool absorbs moisture to keep the surface cool; additionally, it is both natural and renewable making it very sustainable.
Recyclability
With advanced recycling technology, turf is now 100% recyclable and can be turned into new, consumer-grade products. On top of that, turf offers some meaningful benefits.
Here are some facts around what we stand to lose if
access to turf is restricted:
Water
• Many areas around the country have water restrictions. Natural grass requires an enormous amount of water .
• Artificial turf saves between 500,000 to one million gallons of water per field per year . With over 20,000 turfed sports fields in the US, that’s approximately 10-20 billion gallons of water saved annually.
Play
• Without turf, our communities lose access to playing fields and will need to depend on natural fields. Grass fields are likely going to go unmaintained during droughts, which will make them unplayable and possibly dangerous to athletes.
• Participation in sports increases physical, emotional and mental well- being and the likelihood of attending college. It reduces crime and decreases instances of drug use in youth.
• Turf democratizes play by providing sustainable and affordable play surfaces where natural grass won’t work.
Banning artificial turf WILL NOT reduce PFAS exposure in the environment and isn’t needed in order to avoid microplastics or the heat island effect associated with leisure surfaces. What’s worse is that it restricts access to the benefits turf provides.
Let’s encourage our legislation to rethink turf bans and #ProtectPlay.
North America
January 9, 2024
To our valued customers:
I am extremely pleased to announce that TenCate is now manufacturing our top-of-the-line artificial grass without the use of PFAS as a component or processing aid.
Our team performed an in -depth review of how we manufacture our synthetic turf. Engineers discovered a manufacturing processing aid used in fiber extrusion that contained trace levels of non- soluble PFAS and were able to replace it with one that does not contain PFAS. To note, previous third- party testing showed our artificial turf had non-soluble PFAS levels that were far lower than what have been found in consumer products like dental floss and prescription medications.
We are committed to giving our customers complete peace of mind and are dedicated to making the most innovative, highest quality turf that is both safe and sustainable, and this advancement is one more pivotal way we are accomplishing our mission.
Sincerely,
Joe Fields
President and CEO
TenCate Americas
[email protected]
1131 Broadway Street
Dayton, TN 37321-1802
Tel (423) 775-0792
Tel (800) 251-1033
Fax (423) 775-5813
www.tencategrass.com