Major Scientific review of Synthetic Turf environmental and health impacts released by NSW Chief Scientist

NSW CSE synthetic turf report a lot to chew over

A major review and report on current scientific assessment of synthetic turf was published by the NSW Office of the Chief Scientist and Engineer. This is of global significance. 

The NSW government released the NSW Office of the Chief Scientist and Engineer Review report on synthetic turf on Friday 9 June 2023. The actual report is 77 pages but includes 19 appendices, bringing the document up to 539 pages. The Review final Report was ready for publication on 13 October 2022, but release was delayed as the document was made Cabinet-in-Confidence and its release delayed due to the NSW election and change of government

The Review’s analysis and insights focussed on four key questions:

•  What do we know about synthetic turf materials and their use in NSW?

•  What are the trends and initiatives and their applicability to NSW?

•  What are the potential health impacts of synthetic turf?

•  What are the potential environmental and ecological impacts of synthetic turf?

Embedded within the report are 19 appendices containing science based assessments of synthetic turf issues, including: health issues, air pollution and exposure, Odorant monitoring, heat impacts and thermal comfort, heat related health risks, Contaminants and the environment, environmental plastics and microplastics, hydrology, PFAS, soil health, Impact of artificial lights at night, bushfire risk, and Life cycle analysis, and natural turf sporting surfaces.

Much of the report and the science assessments, the key findings and recommendations, have great relevance for Victoria and other states, both for the State Governments and Municipal Councils.

Many of the commissioned experts, from diverse research areas, identified a singular major knowledge gap - that chemical constituents of synthetic turf components, and their associated human and environmental health impacts, are not fully known. (9.1 page 73)

Key insight in the report executive summary questioned the long term sustainability of synthetic turf sporting surfaces given changing climatic conditions due to global warming::

"Overall, it is not clear whether expectations about the longevity and carrying capacity of synthetic fields can be met under Australian climatic conditions, potentially influencing decisions about installation and cost-benefit considerations"

The review also proposed that increased performance of natural turf surfaces may be able to meet the demand for use:

"Best practice guidelines for improving the performance of natural turf have been developed in NSW.  If applied to installation and ongoing management of natural turf sporting fields, these practices may allow increased performance of natural turf fields to meet demand"

The Natural Turf Alliance, a collection of community campaign groups in three states, put forward in a media release that the following should result from this major science based review:

• That a moratorium is placed on synthetic turf in public parks, open spaces, schools and other education environments; 

• Until a full set of guidelines, data sheets, funded research,  safety standards and end of life disposals are developed for synthetic turf

• Forthwith:  all new and current builds are paused and immediately converted to natural turf projects.  Any grants for developing synthetic fields are immediately untied and used for well built natural turf fields.

Report Recommendations

The top recommendation as part of planning and approvals, argues that environmental risk issues with existing and future synthetic need to be mitigated, while best practice natural turf management is implemented to meet increasing demand/use requirements.

“Given longer-term climate and heat projections, attention should be given to mitigating environmental risk in existing and planned synthetic turf installations, implementing best practice natural turf management, advancing materials research into new alternative materials.”

It further spells out priority in the next paragraph:

reduce potential human health and environmental impact of synthetic turf through planning, design, and mitigation measures. These focus initially on managing pollutant ‘runoff’ and ‘walk-off’ risks and exploring the potential of best-practice design and maintenance of natural turf fields to meet increasing use requirements.

Regarding sustainability and End of Life, the recommendation was for a staged plan involving both government and businesses to develop appropriate standards and end of life solutions. Once again it specifies the importance of the capacity of natural turf sporting fields to meet demands for use.

In its third area of recommendation the report argues there needs to be more data collected, and also better collation of data, and the establishment of minimum open data standards for sporting fields to enable informed investment decisions about surfaces installed in public open space.

The fourth and final set of recommendations are to establish a research program to fill many of the significant knowledge gaps highlighted by the scientific assessments, which hinders

effective decision-making. A key research priority recognised by several contributing experts to the Review is understanding the characteristics and composition, including the chemical composition, of materials used in synthetic turf and associated layers.

Key Insights (from Executive summary)

There is a long list of key insights listed in the executive summary. I have listed them all in point form:

• SBR crumb is the material most associated with community concerns about contamination. 

• Currently, there is insufficient information and a lack of standards about the

materials and chemical composition of synthetic turf.

• More accessible data regarding the installation, volumes, and composition of synthetic turf in public and private settings required. 

• Data on the composition of fields is particularly important to inform end of life disposal plans,

• Demographics: Increasing population density is driving demand for green space, while constraining availability of open space. Overallocation of existing sport and recreation facilities is a driver increasing the installation of synthetic turf in areas of higher population density.

• Climate and weather: 

• The changing climate will impact the safety, health and wellbeing of citizens and biodiversity, as well as the durability and resilience of built infrastructure and urban ecosystems.

• Future extremes of flooding, heat and fire risk will affect the performance of different types of both synthetic and natural turf. 

• There are concerns around the impact of intense rainfall and flood on the durability of synthetic turf surfaces and increased water runoff and pollution impacts. 

• Increased heat effects are also a concern, as synthetic turf lacks the cooling and latent heat loss of natural turf;

• Overall, it is not clear whether expectations about the longevity and carrying capacity of synthetic fields can be met under Australian climatic conditions, potentially influencing decisions about installation and cost-benefit considerations.

• Sustainability: Decarbonisation and appropriate end of life solutions are driving change in government policy, regulatory frameworks, and business models globally.

• With government and industry involvement, there are ways in which the synthetic turf industry can become more circular. This includes technical and scientific considerations as well as requirements for product information and standards for materials involved. 

• This is particularly relevant to SBR crumb infill, given the lack of import standards for waste tyres, which are known to contain contaminants and heavy metals.

• New materials and alternatives: 

• Policy shifts are driving industry research into alternative synthetic turf materials and substitutes for chemicals or compounds of concern. Biopolymers that are recyclable and/or compostable are emerging as an alternative material.

• Best practice guidelines for improving the performance of natural turf have been developed in NSW. If applied to installation and ongoing management of natural turf sporting fields, these practices may allow increased performance of natural turf fields to meet demand.

• Health

• Overall, literature reviews and expert advice did not identify major health risks associated with synthetic turf, although there are knowledge gaps, particularly around Australian-specific studies.

• some evidence was found that synthetic turf can generate greater stress on players’ feet

• Heat Strain: The interplay of factors influencing thermal comfort is complex. A need to consider low-level activities of more vulnerable populations, including children

• health risks through direct (such as dermal, ingestion and inhalation) or indirect contact (such as leachate and microplastic runoff) from synthetic turf is likely to be low. Restrictive measures to limit potentially harmful chemicals, leachates and microplastics in synthetic turf components may reduce unforeseen consequences to health, such as restrictions enacted by the EU and US.

• Aspects of mental health, well-being and social cohesion were identified, usually very site specific. Include community access and continued use; consequences of field type and infrastructure, such as odour from synthetic materials and increased artificial light

• Environmental and ecological impacts (Water contamination and soil health)

• a synthetic turf field without structures to reduce infill loss will wash tens to hundreds of kilograms of infill per year into stormwater systems or waterways. 

• The amount of turf fibres lost from a synthetic turf field is likely to be in the 100s of kilograms per year, with the amount increasing for fields near the end of life or under poor maintenance.

• Weathering, UV exposure and the association of microbes with plastic material influences leaching of chemicals into the environment. 

• Research under Australian conditions has found mixed contaminants including heavy metals, have higher toxicity and bioavailability than those in isolation.

• Changes to habitat resulting from synthetic turf installation replacing grass or vegetation may include habitat loss, disruption of ecological functions, increased heat and increased artificial light at night. 

• Increased light at night is a risk associated with synthetic turf sporting facilities that are installed with lights to increase their playing capacity; and has been recognised to fragment nocturnal habitat and impact biodiversity.

• strategic planting of vegetation is highlighted as ameliorating habitat loss, heat effects on fauna and light spill and is broadly effective across a range of habitats

Discussion

I have read the report and delved into the 19 appendices containing the scientific assessments. I produced a literature review on synthetic turf in April 2021 based upon 4-5 months of intensive reading of the scientific and grey literature. Most of the areas covered by the Chief Scientist and Engineer Review I had also delved into in my literature review, with the exception of whether PFAS is in synthetic turf, impact of lighting, and the generation and impact of Odours. 

The areas of this review were covered in much greater depth than I delved into, which should be expected given the scientific assessments were prepared by experts in their fields.

The report assessments mostly agree with issues that I had identified in my literature review. two years ago.

There are a number of issues, insights and constructive criticisms to note:

Sports Coverage

The review did not cover all sports. This became obvious to me in reading the initial pages with tennis failing to be mentioned, but this was clarified on Page 19.

“Some outdoor sports facilities with synthetic turf surfaces are not listed due to insufficient information or difficulty distinguishing between synthetic turf and other synthetic surfaces in the datasets. These include miniature golf, lawn bowls/ pétanque/ boule, playgrounds and leisure areas, shooting ranges, tennis, netball, volleyball, horse/harness racing and other horse-riding arenas.” 

The issues raised in this review should also apply to these sports.

Hybrid Turf

The Office of the Chief Scientists and Engineer found little independent or third party literature on hybrid turf. Which is what I found too. Under 3.3.4 Recycling methods for synthetic turf, the report highlights that recycling hybrid turf is far more problematic:

“There is not much information available about suitability or methods to recycle hybrid turf. The Review has been advised that recycling hybrid turf may be more complex in applications where natural turf is combined with synthetic materials, either by attachment to a mat or where it is in growing amongst a base of synthetic turf fibres.”

Downcycling at End of Life

“Having observed aged and disintegrating fields, the practice of cutting up and ‘redistributing’ EOL fields is not supported by this Review” (3.3.4 Recycling methods for synthetic turf)

Health Impacts

On Health impacts the review used a risk management framework and identified that there were no major health risks so far identified with Synthetic turf. It did note an increase in leg and feet injuries from playing on synthetic turf, which I also identified.

It did note that significant knowledge gaps remain. “There is a specific lack of empirical evidence around the indirect and longer-term cumulative health impacts with a general lack of field studies, epidemiological studies and health risk assessments in the Australian context.”

Infection Risk from Synthetic Turf

Reading the Report by NSW Health one issue felt problematic: how it dealt with microbiological pathogen transmission risk. For this area the scientific assessment focuses on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. “From a public health perspective, the risk of MRSA infection by synthetic turf appears negligible.” 

I am quite happy to accept this expert assessment as accurate for MRSA. 

But maybe they are asking the wrong question? There are other pathogen risks.

The research on bacteria and pathogens in comparing synthetic and natural turf fields in Italy by Valeriani (2019) found a potential increased infection health risk from synthetic turf. “Infill materials can represent a potential source for bacterial grow posing putatively higher infection risks respect to natural fields.”

“The relative abundance of potentially pathogenic bacterial OTUs was higher in synthetic than in natural samples (ANOVA, F = 2.2). Soccer fields are characterized by their own microbiota, showing a different 16S amplicon sequencing signature between natural and artificial turfs.”

The NSW Health study fails to reference Valeriani et al (August 2019) Artificial-turf surfaces for sport and recreational activities: microbiota analysis and 16S sequencing signature of synthetic vs natural soccer fields, Heliyon, Volume 5, Issue 8, 2019, e02334, ISSN 2405-8440, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02334  

It appears NSW Health have answered a very focussed question rather than a more general question about microbiological pathogen activity and transmission risk with synthetic turf. 

Their response has not enlightened the issue, except in regards to one important and specific pathogen. 

Generally, while human health risk of synthetic turf  is assessed as low, several of the assessments also have a word of caution and say there are important knowledge gaps, more research is needed, especially on children's health, and the need for well designed epidemiological longitude studies.

Hydrology (Water) Report

I found this assessment interesting and it highlighted aspects of leachates and microplastics pollution.

“The literature on toxicant leachate is relatively extensive, especially for recycled tyre rubber infill. Zinc appears to be the toxicant most likely to pose a risk to aquatic ecosystems, and it is regularly found in runoff from ST fields in quantities considerably exceeding the guideline values for freshwater ecosystems. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and other toxicants may also be of concern at some fields.

“Leachability of PFAS from ST remains unknown, and to date there has been no peer-reviewed literature on PFAS in ST [This is not now correct, see Lauria et al 2022, which was mentioned in NSW EPA response.]. Due to the large number of PFAS compounds and their low concentrations, further peer-reviewed testing is warranted [74, 75]. Further research focusing on leachability and transport in runoff, as well as testing of all parts of the ST system, is required to determine if PFAS from ST is a threat to the nearby aquatic ecosystem.”

This assessment highlights use of synthetic turf during wet conditions can exacerbate infill loss microplastic pollution and should perhaps be avoided. I am sure sports clubs who use synthetic fields in wet conditions do not want to hear this. 

“Reducing exposure during wet conditions when infill transport is highest [104, 105, 113]. Considering that the ability to play in wet conditions is a major advantage of ST fields, it is unlikely that play will be minimised when the field is wet. However, ideally maintenance should be avoided during wet conditions, and this was shown by Regnell (2018) to result in a reduction of infill material on the maintenance vehicle from 24.1 kg to 12.4 kg per brushing session” argues the Hydrology report (Appendix 4)

Methane and ethylene gas emissions as plastic degrades

As Synthetic turf plastic fibres degrade it emits small quantities of methane and ethylene gas. (Royer et al August 2018). 

This wasn’t referenced at all under air pollutants or other parts of the review. 

Methane has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 34 for 100 years, but a GWP of 86 for 20 years. Ethylene has a GWP of 1.15. I haven’t seen any assessment of these gas emissions per metre per year for a synthetic field.

Metacontext of Fossil fuels, plastics and climate crisis

The review also doesn't go into the meta-context of the climate crisis and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions rapidly, and the contribution of plastics to this crisis, with synthetic turf being a largely non-essential use of plastics. I covered the metacontext in a section of my literature review in 2021. Also note current Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee meetings for a Global Plastics Treaty which just completed its second meeting in Paris, working towards a binding treaty by the end of 2024. 

A recent report published by Pacific Environment argues we need to reduce plastic use by at least 75% by 2050. This includes phasing out single-use plastic by 2040 and curbing durable plastic. See Chen, Xuejing, Kristen McDonald, Madeline Rose, Pacific Environment, (23 May 2023), “Stemming the Plastic-Climate Crisis: Paris Alignment for Plastics Requires at least 75% Reduction”, https://www.pacificenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Stemming-the-Plastic-Climate-Crisis-1.pdf 

While bioplastics are a possible alternative on the horizon, at this stage synthetic turf fibres and matting are made from 100 per cent fossil fuels with many chemical additives.

Some of the meta context is captured in the discussions with Sustainability, circular economy, and proposals for better governance. But these discussions are poorer for not discussing the global forces and trends a little more explicitly.

Microplastics pollution

It was pleasing to see the detail in the issues of microplastics pollution. In the need to mitigate this issue with existing synthetic turf fields. And in trying to scope the health and environmental impacts of microplastics pollution. 

There are many knowledge gaps with microplastics as identified by the review assessments, including environmental impacts on the terrestrial and aquatic environments. This is a very active area of research.

Airborne microplastics pollution

I note the absence of any consideration of airborne transport of microplastics in the Review, except very briefly in passing without detail in the section of Migration of microplastics (5.1.3).

Airborne microplastics as a transport mechanism doesn’t appear to factor in to the research so far from EPIC (Appendix 19):

“From the extrapolation of our in-situ weathering experiments, the plastic types used in synthetic turf could lose between 0.25 and 0.37 kg of rubber/m2/year on average (more loss will be from the infill materials). Apart from stormwater and runoff, people’s shoes and clothes could transport microplastics from the field.”

There is  growing research and concern on airborne microplastics pollution and that synthetic turf has been identified as one source for this pollution.  Here are some very recent research on airborne transport of microplastics:

Breathing Plastic: The Health Impacts of Invisible Plastics in the Air (March 2023), https://www.ciel.org/reports/airborne-microplastics-briefing/

“analyses the implications of micro- and nanoplastics moving through the air and entering the human body via inhalation.”

 

Comment: A literature review of airborne microplastics. Advises: “If no action is taken, the volume of airborne microplastic emissions will follow the expected rise in plastic production, resulting in a greater risk of spreading potentially toxic chemicals. Regulators need to dramatically reduce the production of plastics and phase out hazardous chemicals.”

 

Abad López, Angela Patricia, Trilleras, Jorge, Arana, Victoria A. , Garcia-Alzate, Luz Stella, Grande-Tovar, Carlos David., (March 2023) Atmospheric microplastics: exposure, toxicity, and detrimental health effects, RSC Adv., 2023, 13, 7468-7489 doi.org/10.1039/D2RA07098G https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2023/ra/d2ra07098g 

Comment: Review article of airborne microplastics, including exposure, toxicity and health effects. Outdoor souces for microplastics include: “abrasion of synthetic textiles, incomplete incineration of plastic waste, municipal solid waste, dust storms, abrasion from synthetic rubber tires, scaffolding mesh on construction sites, and synthetic turf for ground cover are recognized as potential sources of MPs suspended in outdoor air.”

 

Mehmood, Tariq., Licheng Peng, (May 2022) Polyethylene scaffold net and synthetic grass fragmentation: a source of microplastics in the atmosphere?, Journal of Hazardous Materials, Volume 429, 2022, 128391, ISSN 0304-3894, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128391.

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389422001790 )

Comment: One of the sources for airborne polyethylene microplastics may be synthetic turf pitches and scaffold netting, argues this Chinese based research. Synthetic turf is commonly polyethylene fibres. These may become airborne as they breakdown through weathering Study behind a paywall, abstract only available

 

Aini, Sofi Azilan., Achmad Syafiuddin, Grace-Anne Bent, (2022) The presence of microplastics in air environment and their potential impacts on health, Environmental and Toxicology Management 2 (2022) 31-39 https://103.106.72.77/index.php/ETM/article/download/2900/1663 

Comment: Indonesian Literature review on microplastics in the air. Lists artificial turf as one of the sources for generating airborne microplastics, summarises previous studies of airborne microplastics.

Microplastics health risks are also a very active area of study with many knowledge gaps.

Meegoda, J.N., Hettiarachchi, M.C. A Path to a Reduction in Micro and Nanoplastics Pollution.(18 April 2023),  Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 2023, 20, 5555. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20085555  

 

Comment: Outlines the problems with microplastics and nanoplastics, lists artificial turf as one source for MPs. Identifies strategies to reduce microplastics pollution. “Removal of MP from the environment is challenging. Source reduction is one of the best methods available to protect the environment and human health.”

 

 

Leslie, Heather A., Martin J.M. van Velzen, Sicco H. Brandsma, A. Dick Vethaak, Juan J. Garcia-Vallejo, Marja H. Lamoree, (April 2022) Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood, Environment International, Volume 163, 2022, 107199, ISSN 0160-4120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199.

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412022001258 )

Comment: Important study highlighting microplastics now found in human bloodstream, and are likely being ingested or inhaled.. Long term health risks are still very much unknown. One of the issues is that microplastic particles often have a hacky structure that attract other toxic chemicals, so microplastics can be a vector into the body and bloodstream and to most organs of toxic chemicals such as Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), heavy metals, Volatile Organochlorine Compounds (VOCs)..

 

Lu, Ji., Zhigang Yu, Lyman Ngiam, Jianhua Guo, (Oct 2022) Microplastics as potential carriers of viruses could prolong virus survival and infectivity, Water Research, Volume 225, 2022, 119115, ISSN 0043-1354, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2022.119115.

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135422010612)

Comment: microplastics act as a vector for viruses. “Both pristine and UV-aged microplastics were found to significantly prolong the infectivity of the adsorbed viruses, even under elevated temperatures. Collectively, our findings highlight that microplastics are associated with the biological risks of water-borne viral transmission through virus adsorption.”

 

Senathirajah, Kala., Simon Attwood, Geetika Bhagwat, Maddison Carbery, Scott Wilson, Thava Palanisami, (Feb 2021) Estimation of the mass of microplastics ingested – A pivotal first step towards human health risk assessment, Journal of Hazardous Materials, Volume 404, Part B, 2021, 124004, ISSN 0304-3894,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124004.

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389420319944 )

Comment: Artificial turf listed as one of the sources of microplastics that contaminates water and the food web, as well as direct inhalation. First attempt at estimating microplastics ingestion, global average basis: with a total of 0.1–5 g of microplastics weekly through various exposure pathways. Drinking water, both from tap and bottled packaging, is one of the largest pathways.

I note in Appendix 19 Environmental Plastics A/Prof Thava Palanisami notes:  

“Seasonal and climate effects on the microplastics and chemical release. Unravelling exposures and uptake over different seasons may prove helpful in understanding the release patterns fully. Extreme climatic conditions in Australia and proven heat generation make it a solid case to develop a quantitative measure of the in-situ and ex-situ flux of microplastics and chemical mixtures due to the ageing and weathering of turf materials." 

This research could be important for determining the extent of microplastic ground and water pollution and airborne pollution.

Palanisami also calls for further research, which is equally important: 

 “Relative environmental and human health risk assessment studies to contextualise the potential risks from synthetic turf on sports players and nearby residents.”

PFAS in synthetic turf

The main assessment on PFAS was a response provided by the NSW EPA. They did not do a literature review specific to the request. They acknowledged PFAS in test results from Sweden and USA. They argued health risks from PFAS is low, with greater concern for PAHs, VOCs, and heavy metals in synthetic turf.

They recommended that:

• testing for PFAS be considered in the context of testing for other more prevalent chemicals such as PAHs and some heavy metals.

• Suggested there would be a benefit in including PFAS in the suite of potential contaminants that are routinely investigated at synthetic field sites.

They note that:

 “Synthetic turf and potential PFAS contamination of synthetic turf are not currently regulated by the EPA. Additionally, there are currently no limits on PFAS levels for synthetic turf or recovered wastes applied to land. No data is held by the EPA regarding the potential contamination of synthetic turf, recovered wastes, and no literature reviews have been undertaken.”

Given Victoria is establishing a synthetic turf recycling centre, I would like expert assessment on what PFAS and other toxic chemicals may imply for the mechanical recycling process. 

Each turf manufactured product may contain PFAS and a mix of other chemical additives. As we don’t have any product life tracing for synthetic turf with unknown chemicals in each batch, this poses a problem for recycling, which no one has explained to me how to overcome without risking spreading toxic contaminants further.. 

Action needed from 3 levels of government

The review raises major governance issues to be addressed at the state level and many of the recommendations target that level of government. 

State Government

Although the Review is aimed at the  NSW government, many of its recommendations would also equally apply to Victoria.  There is great potential for states to co-operate in establishing guidelines in regard to data collection and decision making frameworks.

This is especially important in regard to state government funding synthetic turf, and managing general public health and environmental risks.

The Victorian State Government set sporting Guidelines for use of artificial turf in February 2011, and also is responsible for setting general health and environmental standards. These are now substantially out of date and don’t correspond to sustainability and circular economy directions. 

EPA Victoria were asked in September 2022 to test for PFAS in Synthetic Turf, citing results from overseas. They declined to undertake testing of synthetic turf for PFAS/Fluoropolymers, yet warned that a precautionary approach to avoid should be taken if PFAS presence is suspected.  

Sustainability Victoria in 2022  funded synthetic turf recycling to the tune of $500,000 but the possible presence of embedded Fluoropolymers/PFAS in all synthetic turf raises questions whether recycling is even feasible, given it would further spread toxic contamination and risks this poses for the environment and human health.

The Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into Environmental Infrastructure for Growing Populations handed down its report (pdf) in February 2022. The Andrews Government has yet to respond. Recommendation 4a was "investigate the environmental impacts, as well as cost‑effective mitigation strategies, associated with the large‑scale installation of synthetic surfaces in coming years;”. 

The NSW Office of the Chief Scientist and Engineer Review report has done much of the basic fact finding for Victoria. But the legislative governance will be different. Co-operating with open data collection and setting up appropriate guidelines for synthetic turf and natural turf, and  governance and decision making frameworks could reduce state government costs and provide substantial benefits in data collection for better decision making and a consistent framework for Council decision making.. 

Municipal Councils

Municipal Councils, as the final approval authority who manage open space and sporting fields, also have an important role to play. 

Up to the present information particularly on total life-cycle cost-benefit,and environmental and health risks, have not had the detailed information or a decision making framework for good governance. 

They have not generally sought out possible alternatives as part of a forward thinking environmentally sustainable framework that matches other municipal policies on reducing waste to increase the circular economy, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Councils also have an important role in upgrading mitigation measures to limit microplastics pollution from existing synthetic fields.

Federal Government

There is also a role for the Federal Government, given the need to address the climate crisis and Australia’s commitments to the UNFCCC and the Paris agreement to reduce carbon emissions. Australia has also signed other international agreements on chemicals such as the Stockholm Convention and Rotterdam convention. 

PFAS class of chemicals are not produced in Australia, It is imported as a controlled chemical. Importers and manufacturers (introducers) of PFAS must comply with legal obligations under the Industrial Chemicals Act 2019 (IC Act), which came into force from 1 July 2020. If Fluoropolymers/PFAS is used as an extrusion agent for local manufacture of synthetic turf, the Federal Government could impose regulations or restrictions for PFAS use in synthetic turf manufacture.

The plastics crisis and development of a Global Plastics Treaty presently underway is also an important factor to consider. 

The substantial knowledge gaps identified by the Chief Scientist and Engineer Review  can be closed through Federal research funding.

The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National Conference held in Canberra  20-23 June 2021,  passed a motion unanimously calling on the Federal Government "to investigate the environmental impacts of artificial turf and more environmentally appropriate alternatives for sporting surfaces." (Report)  I haven't heard any response.

References:

• NSW Office of the Chief Scientist, Synthetic Turf in Public Spaces, https://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/independent-reports/synthetic-turf-in-public-spaces#:~:text=The%20Chief%20Scientist%20%26%20Engineer%20will,and%20alternative%20approaches%20and%20technologies
• Full Report: https://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/542263/CSE-Synthetic-Turf-Review-Final-Report.pdf 
• John Englart, April 2021, Literature Review: Synthetic Turf carbon footprint, environmental, health, microplastics and biodiversity impacts, https://takvera.blogspot.com/2021/04/literature-review-synthetic-turf-carbon.html
• Natural Turf Alliance media release, 10 June 2023. Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10160619144893828&set=g.303768508057468