natural grass and artificial turf: separating myths and facts...artificial surfaces lack most of the...
TRANSCRIPT
-
Published by theTurfgrass Resource Centerwww.TurfResourceCenter.org
Natural Grass andArtificial Turf:SeparatingMyths and Facts
Natural Grass andArtificial Turf:SeparatingMyths and Facts
-
2The
Turfgrass
Resource
Center
■http
://www.tu
rfgrasssod
.org/trc/in
dex.html
The Turfg
rass Reso
urce Cen
ter ■
http://ww
w.turfgra
sssod.org/
trc/index.
html3
arti
fici
al s
urf
aces
lac
k m
ost
of
the
ben
efit
s p
rovi
ded
by
nat
ura
l tu
rfgr
ass.
M
any
ath
lete
s,co
ach
es,
par
ents
an
d s
pec
tato
rs t
ake
for
gran
ted
th
e si
gnif
ican
t b
enef
its
of
nat
ura
l gr
ass.
Ove
r 2
0 s
uch
ben
efit
s ar
e li
sted
wit
hin
th
is b
oo
kle
t.
Th
ese
nu
mer
ou
s b
enef
its
con
firm
nat
ura
l gr
ass
as t
he
bes
t sp
ort
s su
rfac
e, w
hic
h i
s w
hy
arti
fici
al t
urf
co
mp
anie
s tr
y so
har
dto
rep
lica
te i
ts l
oo
k a
nd
fee
l.
Co
mp
anie
s in
volv
ed i
n t
he
man
ufa
ctu
re o
r m
arket
ing
of
arti
fici
altu
rf a
ckn
owle
dge
th
ey h
ave
a re
spo
nsi
bil
ity
to a
dd
ress
co
nce
rns
abo
ut
thei
r p
rod
uct
s; h
owev
er t
hei
r p
rod
uct
s h
ave
a re
lati
vely
sho
rt h
isto
ry f
rom
wh
ich
to
dra
w a
ny
pro
ven
res
ult
s.
It i
s d
isco
n-
cert
ing
that
ver
y fe
w p
eop
le q
ues
tio
n t
he
erro
neo
us
clai
ms
of
mar
-ket
ing
firm
s an
d c
on
sid
er t
hei
r d
ata
to b
e fa
ctu
al.
Mo
re s
cien
tif-
ic r
esea
rch
is
nee
ded
to
dir
ectl
y ad
dre
ss r
elia
bil
ity,
lo
nge
vity
an
dth
e p
ote
nti
al n
egat
ive
imp
act
of
arti
fici
al t
urf
wit
h r
egar
ds
to s
afe-
ty,
hea
lth
an
d e
nvi
ron
men
tal
issu
es.
Mu
nic
ipal
itie
s, s
cho
ols
an
d g
rou
ps
are
beg
inn
ing
to w
ake-
up
to
the
po
ten
tial
pro
ble
ms
and
neg
ativ
e af
fect
s in
volv
ed w
ith
art
ific
ial
turf
. S
ever
al h
ave
pla
ced
a m
ora
tori
um
on
its
use
un
til
mo
re o
fth
ese
qu
esti
on
s h
ave
vali
d,
scie
nti
fic
answ
ers
bas
ed o
n p
rove
nd
ata.
Par
ents
, at
hle
tic
bo
ost
er c
lub
s, s
cho
ols
bo
ard
s, a
thle
tic
dir
ecto
rs,
coac
hes
an
d l
oca
lo
ffic
ials
des
erve
an
swer
s to
hel
p t
hem
eva
luat
e u
nsu
bst
anti
ated
cla
ims.
Surv
eys
of
NF
L p
laye
rs s
how
th
at m
ost
ath
lete
s p
refe
r a
nat
ura
l gr
ass
pla
yin
g su
rfac
ean
d f
eel
it i
s th
e m
ore
des
irab
le,
pre
miu
m s
urf
ace.
T
he
fact
th
at o
ther
s h
ave
inst
alle
dar
tifi
cial
tu
rf s
urf
aces
is
no
t an
acc
epta
ble
rea
son
to
ign
ore
th
e re
sear
ch a
nd
fac
ts.
Ch
oo
sin
g th
e b
est
pla
yin
g su
rfac
e fo
r o
ur
chil
dre
n a
nd
ath
lete
s sh
ou
ld n
ot
be
taken
ligh
tly.
A
nyo
ne
inte
rest
ed i
n a
su
stai
nab
le f
utu
re s
ho
uld
be
full
y in
form
ed a
bo
ut
the
ben
efit
s o
f n
atu
ral
turf
gras
s to
ou
r ec
osy
stem
an
d c
on
cern
ed a
bo
ut
the
po
ten
tial
neg
a-ti
ve i
mp
act
of
usi
ng
syn
thet
ic s
urf
aces
.
PREFAC
E: Nat
ural Gr
ass an
d Artif
icial Tu
rf –Sep
arating
Myths
and F
acts
The intent o
f th
is p
ub
lica
tio
n i
s to
pre
sen
t in
sigh
tfu
l in
form
atio
n r
egar
din
g th
em
yth
s an
d f
acts
ab
ou
t n
atu
ral
gras
s an
d a
rtif
icia
l tu
rf.
Res
po
nsi
ble
qu
esti
on
sab
ou
t n
atu
ral
gras
s an
d a
rtif
icia
l tu
rf m
ust
be
ask
ed a
nd
an
swer
ed t
ruth
full
yw
ith
sci
enti
fic
dat
a an
d f
acts
, n
ot
wit
h m
ark
etin
g m
ater
ials
an
d u
nsu
bst
anti
ated
cla
ims.
Th
e in
form
atio
n i
n t
his
bo
ok
let
is b
ased
on
a l
iter
atu
re r
evie
w o
f sc
ien
tifi
c d
ata,
cas
est
ud
ies
and
oth
er i
nfo
rmat
ion
fro
m i
nd
ust
ry p
rofe
ssio
nal
s.
Th
e T
urf
gras
s R
eso
urc
eC
ente
r co
nsi
der
s th
is p
ub
lica
tio
n t
o b
e a
po
siti
ve s
tep
tow
ard
an
ho
nes
t d
ialo
gue.
Nat
ura
l tu
rfgr
ass
pla
yin
g su
rfac
es h
ave
bee
n u
sed
su
cces
sfu
lly
for
man
y ye
ars
and
th
ere
is a
wea
lth
of
scie
nti
fic
dat
a d
ocu
men
tin
g th
eir
safe
ty.
Wit
h p
rop
er m
anag
emen
t an
db
alan
ced
use
, n
atu
ral
gras
s fi
eld
s h
ave
bee
n p
rove
n t
o w
ith
stan
d a
nd
acc
om
mo
dat
e m
ul-
tip
le s
po
rts
team
usa
ge.
Wh
ile
nat
ura
l gr
ass
surf
aces
may
bec
om
e w
orn
fro
m e
xces
sive
use
, th
ose
po
rtio
ns
of
the
fiel
ds
can
be
easi
ly,
eco
no
mic
ally
an
d q
uic
kly
rep
lace
d.
Wit
hp
rop
er m
anag
emen
t, t
he
pla
yab
ilit
y o
f a
nat
ura
l gr
ass
fiel
d,
wit
h a
co
nsi
sten
t an
d u
ni-
form
pla
yin
g su
rfac
e, c
an b
e m
ain
tain
ed y
ear
afte
r ye
ar f
or
a fr
acti
on
of
the
cost
of
anar
tifi
cial
tu
rf s
urf
ace
over
its
pro
ject
ed l
ife
exp
ecta
ncy
. A
n e
nti
re n
atu
ral
turf
gras
s fi
eld
cou
ld b
e re
pla
ced
eve
ry y
ear
and
hav
e th
e w
orn
par
ts o
f th
e fi
eld
rep
aire
d,
all
at a
sig
-n
ific
antl
y lo
wer
co
st t
han
in
stal
lin
g an
d m
ain
tain
ing
an a
rtif
icia
l tu
rf f
ield
.
A
wel
l m
ain
tain
ed
nat
ura
l gr
ass
fiel
d
may
re
qu
ire
wat
er,
fert
iliz
er,
pes
t m
anag
emen
tan
d m
owin
g, b
ut
at s
ign
ific
antl
y lo
wer
lev
els
than
oft
en c
laim
ed b
y ar
tifi
cial
tu
rf s
ales
peo
-p
le.
An
art
ific
ial
turf
fie
ld r
equ
ires
wat
erin
g to
co
ol
the
fiel
d t
o m
ake
it p
laya
ble
du
rin
gw
arm
day
s. W
hat
is
gen
eral
ly o
mit
ted
is
the
fact
art
ific
ial
turf
fie
lds
nee
d p
esti
cid
es a
nd
dis
infe
ctan
ts t
o p
reve
nt
or
elim
inat
e m
old
, b
acte
ria
and
oth
er h
azar
ds
that
wo
uld
oth
er-
wis
e b
e b
iod
egra
ded
by
the
nat
ura
l en
viro
nm
ent
of
turf
gras
s fi
eld
s.
Th
e m
ain
ten
ance
equ
ipm
ent
requ
ired
for
art
ific
ial
turf
fie
lds
is o
ften
un
der
esti
mat
ed.
Com
pan
ies
pro
du
ceen
tire
lin
es o
f m
ain
ten
ance
equ
ipm
ent
for
up
keep
of
arti
fici
al f
ield
s an
d f
or b
rin
gin
g th
embac
k to
a p
laya
ble
con
dit
ion
.
Wh
ile
arti
fici
al t
urf
has
mad
e im
pro
vem
ents
, ar
tifi
cial
tu
rf m
anu
fact
ure
rs c
on
tin
ue
atte
mp
ts t
o s
imu
late
th
e ex
cep
tio
nal
pla
yin
g su
rfac
e th
at o
nly
nat
ura
l gr
ass
pro
vid
es. N
om
atte
r w
hat
yo
u c
all
it –
Art
ific
ial
Tu
rf,
Syn
thet
ic T
urf
, P
last
ic G
rass
– i
t is
a f
act
that
1 N
atio
nal
Fo
otb
all
Lea
gue
Pla
yers
Ass
oci
atio
n 2
00
6 N
FL
Pla
yers
Pla
yin
g Su
rfac
es O
pin
ion
Su
rvey
, w
ww
.NF
LP
laye
rAss
oci
atio
n.c
om
“Ma
ke
all
fie
lds
gra
ss t
o p
reve
nt
inju
ries
.”
Th
is i
s n
um
ber
on
eof
fiv
e w
ritt
en“c
omm
on r
esp
onse
s”b
y 1
,51
1 N
ati
ona
lF
ootb
all
Lea
gue
(NF
L)
pla
yers
in
ap
layi
ng
surf
ace
su
rvey
.1
-
The Turfg
rass Reso
urce Cen
ter ■
http://ww
w.turfgra
sssod.org/
trc/index.
html5
resp
onsi
bil
ity
to c
onsi
der
a w
ide
ran
ge o
f is
sues
an
d c
once
rns.
T
he
follo
win
g in
form
atio
n h
as b
een
ass
emble
d t
o h
elp
th
em m
ake
the
app
rop
riat
e d
ecis
ion
.
What Is
Artificia
l Turf?
Art
ific
ial
turf
was
fir
st i
nve
nte
d i
n 1
965.
Th
e fi
rst
syn
thet
ictu
rf f
ield
s w
ere
not
mu
ch m
ore
than
gre
en p
last
ic i
nd
oor-
outd
oor
carp
et.
At
the
tim
e, s
ome
mem
ber
s of
th
e in
du
stry
th
ough
t th
atas
mor
e te
ams
mov
ed t
o an
in
doo
r st
adiu
m,
gras
s w
ould
not
gro
was
wel
l an
d w
ould
req
uir
e a
subst
itu
te.
Wh
ile
arti
fici
al t
urf
tod
ay h
as e
volv
ed f
rom
th
e p
last
ic m
ats
ofol
d,
the
“tu
rf”
is s
till
atta
ched
to
such
a m
at,
wit
h t
he
fiber
s co
m-
pos
ed o
f p
olye
thyl
ene
lubri
cate
d w
ith
sil
icon
e.
A l
ayer
of
exp
and
-ed
pol
ypro
pyl
ene
or r
ubber
gra
nu
les
(mad
e m
ostl
y fr
om r
ecyc
led
car
tire
s) a
nd
san
d s
erve
as
an “
infi
ll” t
o ad
d s
hoc
k ab
sorb
ency
. I
tis
rec
omm
end
ed t
hat
th
is i
nfi
ll be
rep
len
ish
ed a
nd
/or
red
istr
ibu
ted
on a
reg
ula
r bas
is.
Th
e ad
van
tage
s of
art
ific
ial
turf
lie
in
its
abil
ity
to w
ith
stan
dh
eavy
use
, ev
en d
uri
ng
or i
mm
edia
tely
aft
er a
rai
nst
orm
. F
ield
sen
du
rin
g h
igh
tra
ffic
sit
uat
ion
s th
rou
ghou
t th
e ye
ar (
par
ticu
larl
yw
inte
r) b
enef
it f
rom
its
du
rabil
ity
and
eff
ecti
ve d
rain
age
syst
ems
wh
en p
rop
erly
in
corp
orat
ed i
nto
th
e fi
eld
des
ign
. H
owev
er,
this
is
not
in
exp
ensi
ve.
Th
e co
nst
ruct
ion
of
the
arti
fici
al t
urf
fie
ld a
tB
righ
am Y
oun
g U
niv
ersi
ty c
ost
2.5
mil
lion
dol
lars
wit
h 1
.7 m
il-
lion
dol
lars
of
that
am
oun
t sp
ent
on s
ubsu
rfac
e an
d d
rain
age.
3
Art
ific
ial
fiel
ds
requ
ire
a d
iffe
ren
t ty
pe
–bu
t ju
st a
s ex
ten
sive
mai
nte
nan
ce p
roto
col
–as
nat
ura
l gr
ass,
par
ticu
larl
y if
use
d r
egu
-la
rly
for
a m
ult
itu
de
of s
por
ts e
ven
ts.
The Rol
l of Nat
ural Gra
ss in Spo
rtsA
s of
2006,
the
maj
orit
y of
pro
fess
ion
al s
por
ts f
ield
s st
ill
use
dn
atu
ral
gras
s. I
n t
he
Nat
ion
al F
ootb
all
Lea
gue,
tw
o-th
ird
s of
th
est
adiu
ms
(20 f
ield
s) u
sed
nat
ura
l gr
ass
wh
ile
11 s
tad
ium
s u
sed
art
i-fi
cial
tu
rf.
Eve
n m
ore
dra
mat
ical
ly,
only
fou
r of
30 b
aseb
all
stad
i-u
ms
chos
e ar
tifi
cial
tu
rf.
In E
uro
pe
and
Nor
th A
mer
ica,
som
e so
ccer
clu
bs
con
vert
ed t
osy
nth
etic
tu
rf i
n t
he
1980s,
bu
t so
on c
onve
rted
bac
k to
nat
ura
lgr
ass
wh
en b
oth
pla
yers
an
d s
pec
tato
rs c
omp
lain
ed.
Not
on
ly d
idp
laye
rs f
ind
th
e h
ard
su
rfac
e u
nfo
rgiv
ing
bu
t th
e bou
nce
of
the
bal
l w
as a
ffec
ted
, ch
angi
ng
the
dyn
amic
s of
th
e ga
mes
. A
lth
ough
Table o
f Conte
ntsPre
face: N
atural
Grass a
nd Art
ificial
Turf –
Separa
ting My
ths an
d Fact
s........
..........
........2
Introdu
ction..
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
......4
Decisio
n-Make
rs Need
to Kno
w.......
..........
..........
...4Par
tI:Spo
rts Fiel
d Surfa
ces: Op
inions o
f NFL P
layers
and Pro
fession
al Spor
ts Orga
nization
s........
....6Par
t 2: Co
st Anal
ysis of
Variou
s types
of Spo
rts Fie
lds.....
..........
..........
..........
..........
.8Par
t3:Wea
r, Dura
bility a
nd Mai
ntenan
ce Stud
ies...16
Part 4:
Safety
and H
uman
Health
Issues..
..........
...19
Part 5:
Enviro
nment
al and
Cultur
al Bene
fits.....
....29
Part 6:
Safety
and H
ealth Q
uestion
s to be
Asked
...30
Sa
fety
an
d h
ealt
hb
enef
its
are
am
ajo
r co
nce
rnw
hen
sel
ecti
ng
asp
orts
fie
ld s
urf
ace
.
2 “
Nat
ion
al L
eagu
e P
laye
rs A
sso
ciat
ion
20
06
NF
L P
laye
rs P
layi
ng
Surf
aces
Op
inio
n S
urv
ey”,
Op.
cit
.Q
ues
tio
ns
8 a
nd
23
C.
Fra
nk W
illi
ams
and
Gil
ber
t P
ull
ey,
“Syn
thet
ic S
urf
ace
Hea
t St
ud
ies,
” B
righ
am Y
ou
ng
Un
iver
sity
,w
ww
.byu
.ed
u,
p 2
Su
rvey
qu
esti
ons
ask
ed o
f 1
,51
1N
ati
ona
l F
ootb
all
Lea
gue
pla
yers
: 2
“W
ha
t ty
pe
of f
ield
do
you
pre
fer
to p
lay
on?
Res
pon
ses:
72
.72
%N
atu
ral
Gra
ss
18
.09
%A
rtif
icia
l T
urf
9.1
9%
No
pre
fere
nce
“W
hic
h s
urf
ace
do
you
th
ink c
au
ses
mor
e so
ren
ess
an
dfa
tigu
e to
pla
y on
?”
Res
pon
ses:
4.8
9%
Na
tura
l G
rass
73
.87
%A
rtif
icia
l T
urf
21
.24
%N
eith
erNa
tura
l Gra
ss4.
89%
Natu
ral G
rass
72.7
2%
Introdu
ction
Th
e d
ecis
ion
of
wh
eth
er t
o i
nst
all
arti
fici
al t
urf
or
nat
ura
lgr
ass
is o
ne
that
req
uir
es s
erio
us
con
sid
erat
ion
of
all
rela
ted
scie
nce
-bas
ed i
nfo
rmat
ion
. C
urr
ent
tren
ds
sho
uld
be
pu
tas
ide
in f
avo
r o
f th
e fa
cts
that
can
hav
e sh
ort
- an
d l
on
g-te
rmre
war
ds
or
con
seq
uen
ces.
U
nsu
bst
anti
ated
cla
ims,
ove
r-st
ate-
men
ts,
mis
stat
emen
ts o
r m
isu
nd
erst
and
ings
an
d f
ads
sho
uld
no
t b
e p
art
of
the
dec
isio
n-m
akin
g p
roce
ss.
Wh
ile
ther
e ar
e si
tuat
ion
s w
hen
art
ific
ial
turf
mig
ht
be
anap
pro
pri
ate
cho
ice,
sci
enti
fic
rese
arch
do
cum
ents
th
e si
gnif
i-ca
nt
envi
ron
men
tal,
hea
lth
an
d s
afet
y b
enef
its
of
nat
ura
l gr
ass
wh
ich
sh
ou
ld b
e th
e fi
rst
con
sid
erat
ion
.
Th
e tr
ue
cost
s o
f p
rop
er i
nst
alla
tio
n,
care
an
d m
ain
te-
nan
ce o
f ar
tifi
cial
tu
rf f
ield
s va
ries
as
wid
ely
as t
ho
se o
f n
atu
-ra
l gr
ass.
T
he
key
wo
rd i
s “p
rop
er,”
as
in w
hat
ever
it
takes
to
mai
nta
in h
igh
qu
alit
y fi
eld
s.
Th
e m
ost
rel
iab
le m
ean
s fo
r es
ti-
mat
ing
tru
e co
sts
is t
o r
equ
est
a co
mp
reh
ensi
ve b
id p
rop
osa
lfr
om
art
ific
ial
turf
an
d f
rom
nat
ura
l tu
rfgr
ass
pro
du
cers
,in
clu
sive
of
actu
al c
ost
s fo
r p
re-i
nst
alla
tio
n f
ield
pre
par
atio
n,
inst
alla
tio
n,
po
st-i
nst
alla
tio
n c
are
and
mai
nte
nan
ce,
ann
ual
and
sea
son
al m
ain
ten
ance
, an
d r
epai
r fo
r an
ext
end
ed p
erio
do
f ti
me
such
as
five
or
ten
yea
rs.
Decisio
n-Make
rs Need
to Kno
w
4The
Turfgrass
Resource
Center
■http
://www.tu
rfgrasssod
.org/trc/in
dex.html
To
mak
e fi
scal
ly a
nd
en
viro
nm
enta
lly
sou
nd
dec
isio
ns
rega
rdin
g th
e p
ote
nti
al p
urc
has
e an
d i
nst
alla
tio
n o
f ar
tifi
cial
tu
rfo
r n
atu
ral
gras
s in
th
eir
com
mu
nit
ies,
dec
isio
n-m
aker
s h
ave
the
-
6The
Turfgrass
Resource
Center
■http
://www.tu
rfgrasssod
.org/trc/in
dex.html
The Turfg
rass Reso
urce Cen
ter ■
http://ww
w.turfgra
sssod.org/
trc/index.
html7
the
Fed
erat
ion
In
tern
atio
nal
de
Foo
tbal
l A
ssoc
iati
on (
FIF
A)
allo
ws
the
use
of
syn
thet
ic t
urf
,* s
ome
inte
rnat
ion
al s
occe
r te
ams
abso
lute
ly r
efu
se t
o p
lay
on a
rtif
icia
l tu
rf.
Alt
hou
gh m
any
typ
es o
f tu
rf u
nd
ergo
un
iver
sity
tri
als,
th
ere
isa
lack
of
info
rmat
ion
on
th
e lo
ng-
term
im
pac
t of
art
ific
ial
turf
.W
hil
e go
vern
men
t or
gan
izat
ion
s li
ke t
he
Dep
artm
ent
ofA
gric
ult
ure
an
d t
he
En
viro
nm
enta
l P
rote
ctio
n A
gen
cy e
xist
to
edu
-ca
te u
sers
an
d o
vers
ee t
he
effe
cts
of n
atu
ral
gras
s, t
her
e ar
e n
o go
v-er
nm
ent
rest
rict
ion
s or
gu
idan
ce i
n r
efer
ence
to
arti
fici
al t
urf
.
Wh
ile
mod
ern
art
ific
ial
turf
has
evo
lved
con
sid
erab
ly,
so h
asm
oder
n n
atu
ral
gras
s.
Nat
ura
l gr
ass
fiel
ds
of y
este
rday
th
at w
ere
ofte
n m
ud
dy,
rou
gh o
r si
mp
ly u
np
laya
ble
hav
e bee
n r
epla
ced
wit
hm
oder
n t
urf
gras
s va
riet
ies
dev
elop
ed f
or g
reat
er d
ura
bil
ity,
eve
nu
nd
er h
eavy
tra
ffic
con
dit
ion
s.
Dif
fere
nt
typ
es o
f n
atu
ral
gras
sfi
eld
s ar
e re
ferr
ed t
o th
rou
ghou
t th
is d
ocu
men
t; t
he
mos
t m
oder
nfi
eld
s h
ave
sign
ific
ant
dra
inag
e, a
t le
ast
90 p
erce
nt
un
ifor
m s
and
in
the
pro
file
mix
, an
d t
he
bes
t va
riet
ies
of s
por
ts t
urf
gras
s.
Nat
ura
l so
il o
r n
ativ
e so
il f
ield
s h
ave
soil
com
pac
tion
an
dd
rain
age
lim
itat
ion
s th
at a
re o
verc
ome
wit
h t
he
imp
rove
d,
soil
-m
odif
ied
fie
lds.
N
ativ
e so
il f
ield
s sh
ould
on
ly b
e u
sed
wh
en t
hey
are
nec
essi
tate
d b
y fi
nan
cial
lim
itat
ion
s.
For
nat
ive
soil
fie
lds
toh
ave
any
hop
e of
p
rovi
din
g qu
alit
y tu
rf u
nd
er a
vera
ge t
raff
ic c
on-
dit
ion
s, t
hey
mu
st h
ave
pro
per
pit
ch a
nd
ad
equ
ate
dra
inag
e.
A Stand
ard of C
omparis
onIn
bot
h t
heo
reti
cal
and
pra
ctic
al t
erm
s, a
fai
r co
mp
aris
onbet
wee
n n
atu
ral
gras
s an
d a
rtif
icia
l tu
rf s
hou
ld i
ncl
ud
e th
e m
ost
mod
ern
, te
chn
olog
ical
ly a
dva
nce
d f
ield
s av
aila
ble
on
bot
h c
oun
ts.
Th
e fo
llow
ing
info
rmat
ion
exa
min
es s
ix m
ajor
con
sid
erat
ion
son
e sh
ould
use
wh
en c
ompar
ing
arti
fici
al t
urf
an
d n
atu
ral
gras
s:
1) s
afet
y is
sues
; 2)
cos
t an
alys
is o
f va
riou
s sp
orts
fie
lds;
3)
wea
r,du
rabi
lity
and m
ain
ten
ance
of
fiel
d s
urf
aces
; 4)
hu
man
saf
ety
and
hea
lth
iss
ues
; 5)
en
viro
nm
enta
l is
sues
; an
d,
6) f
utu
re r
esea
rch
iss
ues
.
Part I:
Sports
Field Su
rfaces:
Opinion
s of NF
L Playe
rs and
Profess
ional Or
ganizat
ionsT
he
Nat
ion
al F
ootb
all
Lea
gue
Pla
yers
Ass
ocia
tion
(N
FL
PA
)an
nou
nce
d t
he
resu
lts
of a
lea
gue-
wid
e p
laye
r su
rvey
con
cern
ing
NF
L c
lub’
s p
layi
ng
surf
aces
. T
he
wri
tten
su
rvey
, d
irec
ted
by
the
Boa
rd o
f P
laye
r R
epre
sen
tati
ves,
was
con
du
cted
by
staf
f m
ember
s at
team
mee
tin
gs d
uri
ng
Sep
tem
ber
th
rou
gh N
ovem
ber
, 2006.
Ato
tal
of 1
,511 a
ctiv
e N
FL
pla
yers
fro
m a
ll 32 t
eam
s vo
lun
tari
lyfi
lled
ou
t su
rvey
for
ms.
T
his
su
rvey
is
con
du
cted
eve
ry t
wo
year
s.4
Th
e su
rvey
rev
eale
d t
hat
72.7
2%
of
the
pla
yers
pre
fer
to p
lay
on a
nat
ura
l gr
ass
surf
ace:
18.0
9%
sel
ecte
d a
rtif
icia
l tu
rf;
bu
t, w
hen
pla
yin
g on
art
ific
ial
turf
, 90.8
5%
of
the
pla
yers
wan
ted
th
e so
fter
“in
fill”
wh
ich
cau
ses
a sa
fer
pla
yin
g su
rfac
e –
mak
ing
the
arti
fici
altu
rf f
ield
mor
e li
ke a
wel
l m
ain
tain
ed n
atu
ral
gras
s fi
eld
.
Th
e la
st p
art
of t
he
surv
ey a
sked
for
ad
dit
ion
al c
omm
ents
.N
um
ber
on
e of
th
e fi
ve m
ost
com
mon
res
pon
ses
by p
laye
rs w
as“M
ake
all
fiel
ds
gras
s to
pre
ven
t in
juri
es.”
Aft
er o
ne
of t
he
earl
ier
NF
LPA
su
rvey
s re
late
d t
o fi
eld s
urf
aces
,fo
rmer
Exe
cuti
ve D
irec
tor
Gen
e U
psh
aw s
tate
d:
“In
th
is s
urv
ey,
we
hav
e h
eard
fro
m t
he
tru
e ex
per
ts o
n p
layi
ng
surf
aces
–th
e pla
yers
.”6
Mor
e det
ails
fro
m t
he
2006
NF
LPA
su
rvey
are
in
clu
ded
thro
ugh
out
this
rep
ort.
In
addit
ion
, th
ere
is i
nfo
rmat
ion
on
saf
ety
and h
ealt
h i
ssu
es r
elat
ed t
o ar
tifi
cial
tu
rf a
nd n
atu
ral
gras
s in
Par
t 4.
Synthet
ic Field
s are Be
ing Call
ed Into
Questio
nAll O
ver the
World
In s
pit
e of
agg
ress
ive
lobby
ing
from
syn
thet
ic t
urf
mar
keti
ng
grou
ps,
saf
ety
and
hea
lth
pro
ble
ms
rela
ted
to
syn
thet
ic s
urf
aces
hav
e ca
use
d c
once
rns
and
mor
ator
ium
s th
rou
ghou
t th
e w
orld
.
Dr.
Gu
ive
Mir
fen
der
eski
, ed
itor
at
ww
w.s
yntu
rf.o
rg,
pu
bli
shed
th
efo
llow
ing
arti
cles
: *
Th
e S
cott
ish
Pre
mie
r L
eagu
e b
ann
ed s
ynth
etic
pit
ches
fo
rco
mp
etit
ion
mat
ches
.T
he
Ital
ian
Min
iste
r of
Hea
lth
fou
nd
th
at s
ynth
etic
tu
rffi
eld
s ar
e p
oten
tial
ly c
arci
nog
enic
(ca
nce
r p
rod
uci
ng
subst
ance
).T
he
Cen
ter
for
Dis
ease
Con
trol
an
d t
he
Mou
nt
Sin
aiC
hil
dre
n’s
En
viro
nm
enta
l H
ealt
h C
ente
r is
sued
war
nin
gs a
bou
t th
eh
azar
ds
of a
rtif
icia
l tu
rf.
Nor
way
has
ban
ned
syn
thet
ic t
urf
.T
he
UE
FA
(U
nio
n o
f E
uro
pea
n F
ootb
all
Ass
ocia
tion
s) h
asor
der
ed t
hat
th
e 2008 E
uro
pea
n C
ham
pio
ns
Lea
gue
fin
al m
ust
take
pla
ce o
n n
atu
ral
gras
s.
“T
ha
nk g
ood
nes
sth
e tu
rf [
gra
ss]
tore
in
stea
d o
fm
y sp
ina
l co
rd!
My
pla
yin
gca
reer
, a
nd
p
ossi
bly
my
life
,w
as
save
d b
y th
eso
ftn
ess
of t
he
surf
ace
.”5
Jaso
n D
un
stall
Au
stra
lian
Foo
tball
Lea
gue
4 “
Th
e N
FL
Pla
yers
Pla
yin
g Su
rfac
es O
pin
ion
Su
rvey
,” O
p. c
it.
5 W
end
ell
Mat
hew
s, P
h.D
., “
Ed
ito
rial
Co
mm
ent:
A P
ho
to W
ort
h a
Th
ou
san
d W
ord
s,”
Tu
rf N
ews,
Nov
emb
er/D
ecem
ber
, 1
99
9,
p.
11
6 W
end
ell
Mat
hew
s, I
bid
* G
uiv
e M
irfe
nd
eres
ki
is a
n a
tto
rney
in
pri
vate
pra
ctic
e. H
e m
anag
es t
he
web
site
ww
w.S
ynT
urf
.org
, a
pu
bli
c in
tere
st c
lear
ingh
ou
se f
or
info
rmat
ion
rel
ated
to
art
ific
ial
turf
fie
lds.
** F
rom
“W
hy
cho
ose
nat
ura
l tu
rf?
A d
iscu
ssio
n o
n n
atu
ral
vers
us
arti
fici
al t
urf
fo
r sp
ort
an
d l
eisu
re a
pp
lica
tio
ns,
”b
y th
e E
uro
pea
n S
eed
Ass
oci
atio
n,
20
06
“T
his
art
ific
ial
gra
ss w
as
a d
isa
s-te
r. I
t h
urt
my
feet
. I
rea
lly
hop
ew
e d
on’t
get
th
is i
nth
e A
mst
erd
am
Are
na
. If
th
is i
sth
e fu
ture
, I’
d b
et-
ter
stop
pla
yin
gfo
otb
all
[so
ccer
]”**
Ra
fael
va
n d
er V
aa
rtS
occe
r p
laye
r fo
r A
jax
Am
ster
da
mT
he
Net
her
lan
ds
“Alt
hou
gh m
an
yty
pes
of
turf
un
der
go u
niv
ersi
-ty
tri
als
, th
ere
is a
lack
of
info
rma
-ti
on o
f th
e lo
ng
term
im
pa
ct o
fa
rtif
icia
l tu
rf.”
Ph
oto:
Fol
som
Hig
h
Sch
ool,
Fol
som
, C
A
* F
IFA
’s m
arket
ing
dep
artm
ent
pro
mo
tes
arti
fici
al t
urf
fie
lds,
rec
ievi
ng
sign
ific
ant
con
trac
tor
fees
fo
r F
IFA
-ap
pro
ved
tu
rf f
ield
s
Gra
ss s
tren
gth
is
imp
orta
nt
for
asu
cces
sfu
l sa
nd
ba
sed
sp
orts
fie
ld.
Ph
oto:
A t
urf
gra
ssst
retc
hin
g d
evic
e u
sed
to
mea
sure
gra
ss s
tren
gth
-
The Turfg
rass Reso
urce Cen
ter ■
http://ww
w.turfgra
sssod.org/
trc/index.
html9
Bec
ause
man
y fa
cto
rs c
on
trib
ute
to
th
e fi
eld
s’ c
on
stru
ctio
nco
sts,
yo
ur
spo
rts
turf
man
ager
sh
ou
ld r
esea
rch
rec
ent
sim
ilar
con
stru
ctio
n.
Fo
r fu
rth
er i
nfo
rmat
ion
, co
nta
ct S
TM
A (
Spo
rts
Tu
rf M
anag
emen
t A
sso
ciat
ion
) at
80
0/3
23
-38
75
.
Th
e T
urf
gras
s R
eso
urc
e C
ente
r as
ked
Mik
e K
elly
, a
pro
fes-
sio
nal
sp
ort
s fi
eld
co
ntr
acto
r, t
o d
escr
ibe
bas
ic t
ypes
of
spo
rts
fiel
d i
nst
alla
tio
ns
and
to
giv
e co
st e
stim
ates
. M
ike
Kel
ly’s
co
m-
pan
y in
stal
ls b
oth
art
ific
ial
turf
fie
lds
and
nat
ura
l gr
ass
fiel
ds
atap
pro
xim
atel
y a
50
-50
rat
io.8
He
rep
ort
ed:
“We
con
stru
ct a
nu
mb
er o
f sa
nd
bas
ed f
ield
s an
d l
ay t
he
bas
e o
f a
nu
mb
er o
fsy
nth
etic
fie
lds
per
yea
r.
Th
e co
ntr
acto
r’s
pri
mar
y co
nce
rn i
s to
fin
d w
hat
th
e cu
sto
mer
nee
ds:
qu
esti
on
s in
clu
de:
1)
Wh
at t
ype
of
spo
rts
are
pla
yed
? 2
) H
ow o
ften
wil
l th
e fi
eld
be
use
d?
and
, 3
) W
hat
are
th
e an
nu
al,
loca
l w
eath
er c
on
dit
ion
s?
A h
igh
san
db
ased
fie
ld i
f in
stal
led
co
rrec
tly
wil
l p
lay
as w
ell
in t
he
rain
as
ind
ry w
eath
er.
All
of
the
fiel
ds
des
crib
ed i
n t
his
rep
ort
are
bas
edo
n 8
5,0
00
sq
uar
e fe
et.
Co
sts
app
ly t
o a
no
rmal
hig
h s
cho
ol
and
coll
ege
spo
rts
fiel
d o
r a
recr
eati
on
al f
acil
ity
in a
cit
y p
ark.”
Nat
ive
So
il F
ield
:F
ield
pla
yer
per
form
ance
wil
l va
ry g
reat
lyo
n a
nat
ive
soil
fie
ld.
So
me
of
thes
e fi
eld
s ar
e gr
eat
wh
ile
oth
ers
are
terr
ible
. T
he
nat
ive
soil
str
uct
ure
an
d s
oil
typ
e w
ill
be
the
big
gest
per
form
ance
fac
tor.
Se
ldo
m d
o w
e co
nsi
der
th
is a
no
pti
on
un
less
th
e n
ativ
e so
ils
are
very
san
dy.
T
he
larg
est
cost
of
this
typ
e o
f fi
eld
is
the
site
gra
din
g an
d t
he
dra
inag
e sy
stem
.
Typ
ical
cos
t fo
r th
is t
ype
of f
ield
is
$50,0
00
–$150,0
00
*
San
d B
ased
Fie
ld:T
hes
e fi
eld
s ar
e th
e p
rove
n p
erfo
rman
cest
and
ard
for
a g
ood
ath
leti
c fi
eld
. A
san
d b
ased
fie
ld w
ill
requ
ire
au
nif
orm
siz
e an
d s
tru
ctu
re (
med
ium
san
d,
sem
i-an
gula
r) o
f sa
nd
par
ticl
es.
Th
e sa
nd
per
cen
tage
wil
l be
95-9
9%
wit
h 1
.0 t
o 2.5
%or
gan
ics.
It
has
ver
y li
ttle
sil
t or
ver
y fi
ne
san
d.
Th
is f
ield
wil
ld
rain
at
app
roxi
mat
ely
10 i
nch
es o
r gr
eate
r p
er h
our
and
hav
e
8The
Turfgrass
Resource
Center
■http
://www.tu
rfgrasssod
.org/trc/in
dex.html
7 W
illi
ams
and
Pu
lley
, “S
ynth
etic
Su
rfac
e H
eat
Stu
die
s,”
Bri
gham
Yo
un
g U
niv
ersi
ty,
Op.
cit
.8
“T
he
Co
st o
f F
ield
Co
nst
ruct
ion
in
th
e M
idw
est,
” T
urf
gras
s R
eso
urc
e C
ente
r,h
ttp
://w
ww
.tu
rfgr
asss
od
.org
/trc
/in
dex
.htm
l*
All
co
sts
qu
ote
d i
n P
art
2 a
re U
nit
ed S
tate
s d
oll
ars
un
less
oth
erw
ise
stat
ed.
Mik
e K
elly
pro
vid
ed t
his
info
rmat
ion
in
20
08
wit
h t
he
un
der
stan
din
g th
at—
wit
h t
ime—
dec
isio
n m
aker
s m
ust
fac
tor
in i
nfl
atio
np
erce
nta
ges
and
th
e p
rice
in
crea
ses
of
mat
eria
ls a
nd
lab
or.
**
Th
e in
form
atio
n t
hro
ugh
ou
t P
art
2 d
ocu
men
ts t
his
sta
tem
ent.
All
seve
n p
rofe
ssio
nal
bas
ebal
l st
adiu
ms
in d
evel
opm
ent
atth
e ti
me
of t
his
wri
tin
g w
ill
hav
e n
atu
ral
gras
s, i
ncl
ud
ing
Cis
coF
ield
(O
akla
nd
A’s)
. A
T&
T P
ark
has
alw
ays
had
nat
ura
l gr
ass.
Mon
ster
Par
k (C
and
lest
ick)
ret
urn
ed t
o n
atu
ral
gras
s in
1979.
On
ly f
ive
syn
thet
ic p
ro s
tad
ium
s st
ill
rem
ain
; tw
o of
th
ese
wil
l be
aban
don
ed b
y m
ajor
lea
gue
bas
ebal
l in
2009.
Th
e N
FL
Pla
yers
Ass
ocia
tion
rep
eate
dly
ren
oun
ces
syn
thet
ictu
rf i
n i
ts b
ian
nu
al p
olls
bec
ause
of
its
ten
den
cy t
o ag
grav
ate
inju
ry.
A g
row
ing
nu
mber
of
com
mu
nit
ies
in C
alif
orn
ia a
re o
pp
os-
ing
the
inst
alla
tion
of
syn
thet
ic f
ield
s, i
ncl
ud
ing
San
Car
los,
Woo
dsi
de,
Dan
ville
an
d A
ther
ton
.T
wo
stad
ium
s w
ere
clos
ed i
n N
ew J
erse
y in
2008 b
y th
e re
c-om
men
dat
ion
of
the
New
Jer
sey
Dep
artm
ent
of H
ealt
h a
fter
it
fou
nd
hig
h l
evel
s of
lea
d i
n t
he
stad
ium
’s n
ylon
-fib
er a
rtif
icia
l tu
rf.
A D
utc
h i
nve
stig
atio
n s
tate
d:
“th
e le
ach
ing
of z
inc
[fro
m a
syn
thet
ic t
urf
su
rfac
e] i
s a
maj
or c
once
rn.”
Sou
th K
orea
’s E
du
cati
on M
inis
try
beg
an i
nve
stig
atin
g th
esa
fety
of
recy
cled
ru
bber
gra
nu
les
follo
win
g st
ud
ent
com
pla
ints
of
nos
e an
d e
ye i
rrit
atio
n.
Th
e Sw
edis
h C
hem
ical
Age
ncy
rec
omm
end
ed t
hat
tir
e w
aste
not
be
use
d i
n c
onst
ruct
ing
syn
thet
ic t
urf
fie
lds
bec
ause
th
e p
rod
-u
ct r
elea
ses
haz
ard
ous
mat
eria
ls.
Th
e n
on-p
rofi
t or
gan
izat
ion
, E
nvi
ron
men
t an
d H
um
anH
ealt
h,
Inc.
(w
ww
.eh
hi.
org)
, h
as c
alle
d f
or a
mor
ator
ium
on
syn
-th
etic
su
rfac
es.
Stat
e le
gisl
ator
s in
Cal
ifor
nia
, N
ew Y
ork,
New
Jer
sey
and
Min
nes
ota
hav
e ca
lled
for
a m
orat
oriu
m.
Th
e U
.S.
Con
sum
er P
rod
uct
Saf
ety
Com
mis
sion
is
inve
sti-
gati
ng
pot
enti
al h
azar
ds
from
lea
d i
n a
rtif
icia
l tu
rf s
por
ts f
ield
s.T
he
Att
orn
ey G
ener
al o
f C
onn
ecti
cut
has
cal
led
for
fu
rth
erst
ud
ies
asso
ciat
ed w
ith
ris
ks r
elat
ed t
o ar
tifi
cial
tu
rf.
Field C
onstruc
tion Typ
es and
Costs
Part 2:
Cost A
nalysis
of Var
ious
Types o
f Sports
Fields
Sin
ce c
on
dit
ion
s an
d r
equ
irem
ents
var
y, t
her
e is
no
sin
gle
def
init
ive
answ
er o
r fi
gure
to
des
crib
e th
e co
sts
of
con
stru
ctin
gan
d m
ain
tain
ing
a n
atu
ral
gras
s fi
eld
or
a sy
nth
etic
fie
ld.
Just
as
nat
ura
l gr
ass
spo
rts
fiel
ds
hav
e an
in
stal
lati
on
co
st r
ange
bec
ause
of
bas
e so
il c
on
dit
ion
s an
d t
hei
r p
rep
arat
ion
, th
e in
stal
la-
tio
n c
ost
of
an a
rtif
icia
l tu
rf s
po
rts
fiel
d c
an v
ary
fro
m b
asic
to
pre
miu
m.
As
pre
vio
usl
y m
enti
on
ed,
the
arti
fici
al t
urf
fie
ld a
t
Bri
gham
Yo
un
g U
niv
ersi
ty i
s a
pre
miu
m i
nst
alla
tio
n t
hat
co
st2
.5 m
illi
on
do
llar
s (o
f th
at a
mo
un
t, 1
.7 m
illi
on
was
sp
ent
for
the
sub
surf
ace
and
dra
inag
e sy
stem
)7
Th
eref
ore
, co
nsu
ltin
g th
e ex
per
ien
ces
of
oth
er f
ield
bu
ild
ers
and
use
rs p
rovi
des
a m
eth
od
of
esti
mat
ing
cost
s.
Myth:
Art
ific
ial
turf
sa
ves
mon
eyb
eca
use
of
its
lon
gevi
ty.
Fact:W
hil
e th
efa
ctor
s in
flu
enc-
ing
cost
s va
ryfr
om f
ield
to
fiel
d,
con
stru
c-ti
on c
osts
for
an
art
ific
ial
turf
fiel
d g
ener
all
y fa
rou
twei
gh c
on-
stru
ctio
n c
osts
for
a n
atu
ral
fiel
d.*
*
Cru
mb
ru
bb
er i
su
sed
in
th
e b
ase
bel
ow t
he
surf
ace
of t
he
art
ific
ial
turf
ca
rpet
–“I
nh
ala
tion
of
com
pon
ents
of
tire
rub
ber
or
du
stp
art
icle
s fr
om t
ire
rub
ber
ca
n b
e ir
ri-
tati
ng
to t
he
resp
i-ra
tory
sys
tem
an
dca
n e
xace
rba
tea
sth
ma
.”
Dr.
Jo
sep
h P
. Su
lliv
an
An
Ass
essm
ent
ofE
nvi
ron
men
tal
Tox
icit
ya
nd
Pot
enti
al
Con
tam
ina
tion
fro
mA
rtif
icia
l T
urf
usi
ng
Sh
red
ded
or
Cru
mb
Ru
bb
er*
* Jo
sep
h P
. Su
lliv
an,
Ph
.D.,
“A
n A
sses
smen
t o
f E
nvi
ron
men
tal
Tox
icit
y an
d P
ote
nti
al C
on
tam
inat
ion
fr
om
Art
ific
ial
Tu
rf u
sin
g Sh
red
ded
or
Cru
mb
Ru
bb
er,”
Ard
ea C
on
sult
ing,
Mar
ch 2
8,
20
06
, p
age
2.
T
his
lit
erat
ure
rev
iew
was
in
itia
ted
by
Tu
rfgr
ass
Pro
du
cers
In
tern
atio
nal
an
d i
s av
aila
ble
at
htt
p:/
/ww
w.t
urf
gras
sso
d.o
rg/t
rc/i
nd
ex.h
tml
-
The Turfg
rass Reso
urce Cen
ter ■
http://ww
w.turfgra
sssod.org/
trc/index.
html11
10The
Turfgrass
Resource
Center
■http
://www.tu
rfgrasssod
.org/trc/in
dex.html
good
res
ista
nce
to
com
pac
tion
.
Typ
ical
cos
t of
th
is t
ype
of f
ield
is
$250,0
00
–$350,0
00
.
San
d B
ased
Mes
h E
lem
ent
Fie
ld:T
his
ReF
lex
Mes
h E
lem
ent
Fie
ld i
s bu
ilt
sim
ilar
to
a sa
nd
bas
ed f
ield
, h
owev
er i
t in
corp
orat
esse
gmen
ts o
f p
olyp
rop
ylen
e n
etti
ng
into
th
e to
p 4
in
. of
th
e p
rofi
le.
Th
e in
clu
sion
of
the
mes
h i
ncr
ease
s p
ore
spac
e w
hic
h g
ives
mor
ew
ater
an
d a
ir h
old
ing
cap
acit
y, i
ncr
ease
s in
filt
rati
on r
ates
, im
pro
ves
surf
ace
stab
ilit
y, d
ecre
ases
div
ots
and
im
pro
ves
the
reco
very
tim
ebec
ause
th
e p
lan
ts a
re h
ealt
hie
r.
Typ
ical
cos
t of
th
is t
ype
of f
ield
is
$450,0
00
–$600,0
00
Pu
re S
and
Bas
ed W
ater
-Con
tain
ed S
ub
-Su
rfac
e Sys
tem
Fie
ld:
Th
is i
s a
new
typ
e of
nat
ura
l gr
ass
fiel
dth
at r
equ
ires
les
s th
an 5
0p
erce
nt
of
the
wat
er o
f a
no
rmal
san
d b
ased
fie
ld.
Typ
ical
co
st o
f th
is t
ype
of
fiel
d i
s $
50
0,0
00
–$
60
0,0
00
.(T
her
e w
ou
ld b
e an
ad
dit
ion
al c
ost
if
you
in
clu
de
Ref
lex
mes
h e
lem
ents
.)
Syn
thet
ic F
ield
:Sy
nth
etic
tu
rf i
s fi
lled
wit
h a
gro
un
d r
ub
ber
mat
eria
l to
cu
shio
n t
he
use
rs o
f th
e fi
eld
. T
he
sub
-bas
e is
co
m-
po
sed
of
a h
ard
, ch
ipp
ed r
ock
mat
eria
l th
at w
ill
dra
in w
ater
fre
ely.
Th
is i
s ge
ner
ally
6 i
n.-
10
in
. o
f co
urs
e ro
ck m
ater
ial
and
ap
pro
xi-
mat
ely
2 i
n.
of
fin
e gr
anu
lar
chip
s.
Ple
ase
no
te t
hat
th
e ca
rpet
on
syn
thet
ic f
ield
s n
eed
s to
be
rep
lace
d e
very
8-1
0 y
ears
. T
he
cost
of
the
carp
et r
epla
cem
ent
is p
roje
cted
at
$5
00
,00
0+
in
to
day
’s d
ol-
lars
. Typ
ical
co
sts
of
thes
e fi
eld
s ar
e $
85
0,0
00
–$
1,0
00
,00
0.
Photo: D
arian D
ailyW
ate
r co
olin
g a
nd
cle
an
ing
the
syn
thet
ic t
urf
usi
ng
irri
gati
on.
Th
e fi
eld
sh
ould
als
o b
e tr
eate
dw
ith
ch
emic
als
to
elim
ina
te
ba
cter
ia a
nd
mol
d.
9
Lyn
ne
Bra
kem
an,
“Exp
erts
sp
ell
ou
t th
e tr
ue
cost
of
syn
thet
ic t
urf
mai
nte
nan
ce,”
Ath
leti
c T
urf
New
s, M
ay 2
4,
20
05
, p
.11
0 L
ynn
e B
rakem
an,
Ibid
, p
p 3
an
d 4
*No
te:
the
sup
ply
co
st s
um
mar
y d
oes
no
t in
clu
de
the
app
lica
tio
n o
f cr
um
b r
ub
ber
on
e ti
me
a ye
ar u
sin
g 1
0 t
on
sas
“to
p d
ress
ing”
at
$5
00
per
to
n (
$5
,00
0 d
oll
ars)
. A
dd
ing
this
fig
ure
, th
e su
mm
ary
tota
l w
ou
ld b
e $
27
,76
0.
Th
e co
st e
stim
ate
for
a sp
ort
s fi
eld
mu
st i
ncl
ud
e th
e an
nu
alm
ain
ten
ance
co
sts.
T
his
see
ms
ob
vio
us,
bu
t th
ere
has
bee
n m
is-
info
rmat
ion
rel
ated
to
art
ific
ial
turf
fie
lds.
A
n A
thle
tic
Tu
rf N
ews
arti
cle
rep
ort
ed:
“Mai
nta
inin
g sy
nth
etic
tu
rf s
yste
ms
is n
ot
as i
nex
-p
ensi
ve o
r as
‘la
bor
fre
e’ a
s so
me
peo
ple
may
hav
e bee
n l
ead
to
bel
ieve
.”9
Th
at w
as t
he
“tak
e-h
om
e m
essa
ge”
fro
m t
he
Mic
hig
anSp
ort
s T
urf
Man
ager
s A
sso
ciat
ion’
s (M
iST
MA
) Sy
nth
etic
Tu
rf I
nfi
llM
ain
ten
ance
Sem
inar
hel
d a
t th
e D
etro
it L
ion
s’ p
ract
ice
faci
lity
in
Dea
rbo
rn,
MI.
D
etai
ls o
f m
ain
ten
ance
cos
ts a
t M
ich
igan
Sta
teU
niv
ersi
ty a
re p
rese
nte
d b
elow
. T
he
follo
win
g in
form
atio
n p
rese
nts
con
stru
ctio
n c
osts
, p
lus
mai
nte
nan
ce c
osts
. S
ome
of t
he
rep
orts
am
or-
tize
d c
osts
ove
r a
spec
ific
per
iod
of
tim
e to
giv
e a
real
isti
c u
nd
erst
and
-in
g of
an
nu
al c
osts
.
Artificia
l Turf Sp
orts Fie
ld Maint
enance
Costs
Th
e M
ich
igan
Sp
orts
Tu
rf M
anag
ers
Ass
ocia
tion
sp
onso
red
a s
em-
inar
tit
led
“Sy
nth
etic
Tu
rf I
nfi
ll M
ain
ten
ance
” h
eld
at
the
Det
roit
’sL
ion
pra
ctic
e fa
cili
ty i
n D
earb
orn
, M
I. A
my
J. F
outy
, C
SFM
, at
hle
tic
turf
man
ager
for
Mic
hig
an S
tate
Un
iver
sity
, p
rese
nte
d d
etai
ls a
bou
tth
e co
st o
f m
ain
tain
ing
MSU
’s sy
nth
etic
tu
rf i
nd
oor
thre
e-ye
ar-o
ldp
ract
ice
fiel
d.
Fo
uty
pre
sen
ted
th
e fo
llow
ing:
10
MA
INT
EN
AN
CE
CO
ST
S
To
tal
stra
igh
t h
ou
rly
cost
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
$5
,04
0
(Fie
ld o
nly
; 280 h
ours
at
$18 p
er h
our;
ben
efit
s n
ot i
ncl
ud
ed)
To
tal
sup
ply
co
st..
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
.$6
,22
0T
ota
l eq
uip
men
t co
st f
or
the
year
....
....
....
....
....
.$3
,50
0(T
his
in
clu
des
a s
wee
per
($1,5
00);
a bro
om (
$500);
an
d,
a gr
oom
er (
$1,5
00)
To
tal
ou
tsid
e co
ntr
acto
r re
pai
rs..
....
....
....
....
...$
8,0
00
TO
TA
Lco
st 2
00
4-2
00
5..
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
..$
22
,76
0
SY
NT
HE
TIC
TU
RF
MA
INT
EN
AN
CE
EQ
UIP
ME
NT
Eq
uip
men
t to
sp
ray
wat
er..
....
....
....
....
$1
,00
0 t
o $
35
,00
0Sw
eep
er..
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
$1
,50
0 t
o $
20
,00
0B
room
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
..$
50
0 t
o $
3,0
00
Pai
nte
r...
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
...$
50
0 t
o $
3,0
00
Gro
om
er..
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
..$
1,5
00
to
$2
,00
0C
art
(to
tow
equ
ipm
ent)
....
....
....
....
....
..$
2,5
00
to
$1
6,0
00
Fie
ld M
agn
et..
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
..$
50
0 t
o $
1,0
00
Roll
ers..
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
$2
50
to
$2
,00
0
TO
TA
L..
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
...$
8,2
50 t
o 8
2,0
00
Compar
ative M
ainten
ance C
ost
Con
stru
ctio
n
pro
file
for
a
syn
thet
ic f
ield
.
Con
stru
ctio
n p
rofi
lefo
r a
sa
nd
ba
sed
fiel
d.
Tw
o in
ch r
ock
laye
r a
nd
sa
nd
to
ap
pro
pri
ate
dep
th1
2-1
8 i
nch
es.
Ph
oto
an
d i
nfo
rma
tion
:R
ehb
ein
Exc
ava
tin
g, I
nc.
Ph
oto
an
d i
nfo
rma
tion
:D
ari
an
Da
ily,
H
ead
Gro
un
dsk
eep
er,
Pa
ul
Bro
wn
Sta
diu
m,
Cin
cin
na
ti,
Oh
io
A B C D
0
$2
00
,00
0
$4
00
,00
0
$6
00
,00
0
$8
00
,00
0
$1
,00
0,0
00■
Low
Estim
ate
■
Hig
h E
stim
ate
A:
Art
ific
ial
Tu
rf L
evel
B:
Ru
bb
er/S
an
d M
ixC
: R
ock (
#5
7 s
ton
e)D
: P
ea G
rave
l a
nd
/or
old
sa
nd
ba
se
*
A Sum
mary o
f Constr
uction
Costs
-
11
Sp
ort
sTu
rf M
anag
ers
Ass
oci
atio
n,
“A G
uid
e to
Syn
thet
ic a
nd
Nat
ura
l T
urf
gras
s fo
r Sp
ort
s F
ield
s,”
ww
w.S
TM
A.o
rg (
Cli
ck P
DF
ver
sio
n t
oac
cess
co
mp
lete
gu
ide
of
19
pag
es)
The Turfg
rass Reso
urce Cen
ter ■
http://ww
w.turfgra
sssod.org/
trc/index.
html13
12The
Turfgrass
Resource
Center
■http
://www.tu
rfgrasssod
.org/trc/in
dex.html
12
Sp
ort
sTu
rf M
anag
ers
Ass
oci
atio
n,
“A G
uid
e to
Syn
thet
ic a
nd
Nat
ura
l T
urf
gras
s fo
r Sp
ort
s F
ield
s,”
Op.
cit
*Fo
r fu
rth
er r
ead
ing
abo
ut
turf
fie
ld i
ssu
es a
nd
man
agem
ent,
use
th
e T
GIF
dat
abas
e o
nli
ne.
Mem
ber
s ca
n a
cces
sd
irec
tly
via
thei
r o
rgan
izat
ion
web
site
. O
ther
s ca
n s
ub
scri
be
ind
ivid
ual
ly;
see
htt
p:/
/tic
.msu
.ed
u f
or
furt
her
det
ails
.
Cost of
Equipm
ent, Sup
plies an
d Labor
Require
d for
Maintai
ning Art
ificial T
urf and
Natura
l Grass:
Art
ific
ial
Tu
rfN
atu
ral
Gra
ss
Wat
er (
for
cool
ing)
. .
. .
. .
$6,0
00-3
5,00
0Ir
riga
tion
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
$6,0
00-3
5,00
0
Spra
yer
for
wat
er a
pplic
atio
n$1
,000
-35,
000
Equ
ipm
ent
for
irri
gati
on.
. $3
,000
-31,
000
Swee
per
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
$1,5
00-2
0,00
0M
ower
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. $1
3,00
0-69
,000
Mec
han
ical
Bro
om.
. .
. .
. .
. .
$500
-3,0
00Fe
rtil
izer
App
lica
tor
. .
. .
. .
. $1
,000
-3,0
00
Lin
e Pa
inte
r. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
$5
00-3
,000
Pain
ter,
lin
e. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
$700
-3,0
00
Gro
omer
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. $1
,500
-2,0
00R
olle
rs.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
$2,0
00-4
,000
Car
t (f
or t
owin
g eq
uip
.).
. $7
,000
-16,
000
Car
t (f
or t
owin
g eq
uip
.).
. .
$7,0
00-1
8,50
0
Fiel
d M
agn
et.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
$500
-1,0
00A
erat
or.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. $3
,500
-17,
000
Rol
lers
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
$250
-2,0
00V
acu
um
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
$2,1
00-5
,000
Top
Dre
sser
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. $4
,500
-10,
000
Top
Dre
sser
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
$4,5
00-2
0,00
0
To
tal
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. $
23
,25
0-1
27
,00
0T
ota
l.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. $
42
,80
0-2
05
,50
0
Annual
Mainten
ance Re
quired f
or:A
rtif
icia
l T
urf
Nat
ura
l G
rass
Pain
tin
g/re
mov
al
Pain
tin
g(v
ario
us
spor
ts)
. .
. .
. .
. .
. $1
,000
-10,
000
(var
iou
s sp
orts
).
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
$800
-12,
300
Top
Dre
ssin
g/In
fill
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
$5,0
00*
Top
Dre
ssin
g (s
and
).
. .
. .
. .
. .
. $0
-5,4
00
Bru
shin
g/sw
eepi
ng
. .
. .
. .
. .
$1,0
00-5
000
Dra
ggin
g.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. $0
-200
Dis
infe
ctin
g/Fa
bric
Sof
ten
er.
. .
. .
. $2
20*
Fert
iliz
ers
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
$1,2
00-1
1,00
0
Car
pet
Rep
air
Pest
icid
es.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
$650
-6,3
00
(rip
s, j
oin
ts).
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
$1,0
00-8
,000
*A
erat
ion
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. $7
00-9
60
Wat
er C
ooli
ng
. .
. .
. .
. .
. $5
,000
-10,
000
Sod
Rep
lace
men
t.
. .
. .
. .
. $8
33-
$12,
500
Wee
din
g.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. $5
00-1
,000
Irri
gati
on.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
$300
-3,0
00
To
tal
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. $
13
,72
0-
$3
9,2
20
To
tal.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
$
8,1
33
- $
48
,96
0*M
ich
igan
Sta
te U
niv
ersi
ty/B
rakem
an,
Op.
cit
., p
4
Th
e fo
llow
ing
is a
bas
ic c
om
par
ativ
e gu
ide
pre
sen
tin
g a
bro
ad r
ange
of
esti
-m
ates
. T
he
info
rmat
ion
has
bee
n g
ath
ered
by
Th
e T
urf
gras
s R
eso
urc
e C
ente
rfr
om
res
earc
h r
epo
rts,
sem
inar
pre
sen
tati
on
s, p
ub
lish
ed a
rtic
les,
man
ufa
ctu
rers
,su
pp
lier
s, a
nd
per
son
al c
on
vers
atio
ns
wit
h f
ield
co
ntr
acto
rs a
nd
fie
ld m
anag
ers.
Est
imat
es a
re g
iven
on
ly a
s a
gen
eral
gu
ide.
E
ach
po
ten
tial
bu
yer
mu
st g
ath
erth
eir
own
in
form
atio
n a
s it
rel
ates
to
fie
ld t
ype,
fie
ld s
ize,
geo
grap
hic
lo
cati
on
,ar
ea l
abo
r co
sts,
am
ou
nt
of
site
wo
rk r
equ
ired
, ir
riga
tio
n o
r w
ater
/co
oli
ng
nee
ds,
and
th
e n
um
ber
of
esti
mat
ed g
ames
or
acti
viti
es.
Th
e Sp
ort
sTu
rf M
anag
ers
Ass
oci
atio
n’s
A G
uid
e to
Syn
thet
ic a
nd
Nat
ura
l Tu
rfgr
ass
for
Spor
ts F
ield
sis
a g
oo
dso
urc
e to
beg
in a
co
mp
arat
ive
stu
dy
of
sele
ctio
n,
con
stru
ctio
n a
nd
mai
nte
nan
ceco
nsi
der
atio
ns.
11
Compar
ative G
uide: E
quipme
nt and
Mainte
nance
Natural
Grass S
ports F
ield Ma
intenan
ce Cost
Th
e co
sts
for
mai
nta
inin
g a
nat
ura
l gr
ass
fiel
d v
ary