Artificial turf poses a range of health and environmental concerns, including chemicals in the rubber and plastic materials, excess heat, skin abrasions, macro- and microplastic pollution in the environment, and habitat loss, among others.
In 2019, The Intercept reported on tests that indicated the presence of PFAS in artificial turf materials. Since that time, many communities have been engaged in discussions about PFAS in artificial turf, and a variety of laboratory tests have been conducted in an effort to better understand and characterize the presence of PFAS in these products.
What are PFAS, or “forever chemicals”?
PFAS are organic chemicals that include carbon-fluorine bonds (for a formal definition, see OECD’s report on PFAS terminology). Due to the strength of the carbon-fluorine bond, these chemicals are extremely long-lasting in the environment. There are many PFAS chemicals — more than 15,000 PFAS have been identified in US EPA’s Comptox database.
PFAS Central, a project of the Green Science Policy Institute, is one helpful resource for learning more about PFAS.
Chemicals in products, including those in artificial turf, are not routinely disclosed by manufacturers or vendors. Testing by municipalities, nonprofit organizations, and local community organizations is helping to fill this transparency gap, and helps to inform efforts to avoid preventable sources of contamination.
How do you test for PFAS in artificial turf?
Some key concepts can make it easier to make informed decisions about whether to order tests and how to understand them if tests have already been conducted in your community.
Several kinds of tests are available. Some of them focus on individual PFAS compounds, while others look broadly to determine whether any PFAS compounds may be present. Tests may be categorized differently depending on the information sources you consult, but understanding the differences among the broad categories can help you orient yourself.
A total fluorine test provides information on the presence of the element fluorine. A total organic fluorine test provides information on the presence of organic fluorine (i.e. fluorine bonded to carbon). All PFAS are organic fluorine compounds.
A total organic fluorine test can provide an indication of the presence of PFAS, although it does not indicate which specific PFAS are present. If you need to know whether a product is PFAS-free, obtaining information on total organic fluorine is a good place to start.
Targeted testing looks for specific PFAS compounds. Depending on the test, targeted testing may provide information on a handful of chemicals, or on dozens of chemicals. Targeted testing only looks for a defined set of specific chemicals.
For example, EPA Test Method 1633 can provide information on levels in certain media of 40 individual PFAS compounds – but does not provide any information about other PFAS that could be present. It is useful in quantifying specific PFAS in specific media, but not as useful in determining whether a product is PFAS-free.
Nontargeted testing can be used to identify if any PFAS compounds may be present in the sample. This is useful if a community wishes to determine which individual chemicals are present in the sample. Additional tests may then be necessary if you need to know the concentrations of those chemicals in the materials.
A total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay can also provide useful information. For more information on this and other methods, see this recently released fact sheet.
Matching the test to your needs
In choosing a test method, it is essential to be clear about what question you are working to answer. For example, if you need to know if any PFAS are present, do not rely on a targeted test, which will only provide information on certain individual compounds.
Another common pitfall is that some tests are designed only to test possible leaching of PFAS into water, and do not provide information on the concentration of PFAS in the material itself. If you are ordering new tests, be sure that the laboratory has experience testing PFAS in plastic materials and is able to answer these questions to your satisfaction.
When ordering a test or reading test results, it is also important to check the detection limit to see if it corresponds to the information you need. For example, if you need information about chemicals that may be present at the parts per billion (ppb) or parts per trillion (ppt) level, be sure that any tests carried out on the material will provide results at that level. If the limit of detection is set too high, you may not obtain the information you need.
Reducing PFAS in our communities
Some states and municipalities are now addressing this issue through laws or local ordinances. For example, a New York law adopted in 2022 will prohibit the use of PFAS in carpets, and the law defines carpet as including artificial turf. Regulatory approaches of this kind could provide additional clarity, and may in some cases incorporate guidance about testing.
For more information on PFAS in artificial turf and on approaches to testing for PFAS in these products, see our newly published fact sheet, Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Artificial Turf: Test Methods.
This blog post is the fourth in a series on artificial turf, playground surfacing, and safer alternatives. Also see:
Dr. Rachel Massey is Senior Science and Policy Advisor at the Collaborative for Health and Environment. She has worked at the intersection of public interest science and policy making in state, national and international arenas. Prior to joining CHE she served as Senior Associate Director at the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute.
Lindsey Pollard, MS is a Research Associate at the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. Her work includes research on chemical hazards and alternatives assessment for consumer and industrial applications. Prior to joining the Lowell Center, Lindsey worked as a researcher at the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute, and in the field and lab as an aquatic ecologist at Arizona State University and the University of Texas at Austin Marine Science Institute.