Turf Studies & UVC
Over the recent years, there's been a good level of discussion concerning the safety of synthetic turf. Attempting to address the many fears over dangerous viruses such as HIV and MRSA, several independent studies have been conducted.
Two surveys are mentioned more commonly, both from Penn State. Most notably,"A Survey of Microbial Populations in Infilled Synthetic Turf Fields" published in 2006 and the "Survival of Staphylococcus aureus on Synthetic Turf", published in 2008
You can access these studies at the Penn State website here.
These two studies represent the inital attempts at understanding the conditions present in synthetic infill surfaces. However, several concerns should be shared over people's interpretations of each survey's conclusions as well as the conclusions themselves.
Considering both studies, people have been suggesting that synthetic turf systems have microbial populations, but that they are low. If concerned, the best way to reduce microbial colonies is to treat areas with chemicals such as cationic surfacants, antimicrobials, and detergents.
At GreensGroomer WorldWide, we suggest that every facility with a synthetic turf system should proactively address turf safety. A whole range of microbial activity does, in fact, exist. This includes the highly resistant varieties, like MRSA and HIV. However, a chemically-based program is not cost-effective ($2,500 to $3,500 for a single surficant or antimicrobial treatment) and detergents don't address the virulent strains. The UVC techonogy that the GreenZapr represents can cost-effectively treat turf surfaces and do so practically before and after events and activities.
In the simplest of terms, here is what should be gleened from the studies.
"A Survey of Microbial Populations in Infilled Synthetic Turf Fields" (2006)
The sampling size used in the study is statistically insignificant which makes the suggestion that synthetic turf systems are safe a dangerous assumption. In the conclusion, they state "synthetic turf systems have a lower number of total microbes than natural systems and no Staphylococcus aureus was found". The first conclusion may be plausible but they don't clarify the types of microbes. The second cannot be plausible if such a small sample was taken.
The study pulled two infill samples from each field (2-3ml each). One sample from a high-use area (defined as 'between the hash marks, between the 30 and 40 yard lines") and one from a low use area (defined as "typically an area toward the edge of the field or an end zone").
The square footage of the high use area, for example, represents 235,440 square inches. Figuring that one may take the 2-3ml sample from an area of 2 square inches (conservatively), the sample represents less than .001% of the high or low-use area.
Other concerns are that the samples were from 11 fields in Pennsylvania, taken May through August. This suggests that conditions in Pennsylvania represent all climates and field characteristics from other locations. Also, the timing of the sampling occured during the summer when activity at educational locations is low. This fails to accurately represent field conditions when activity is high and where microbial contributions rise.
A clarification on the Penn State Study was produced by a award-winning PhD in biochemistry, William C.H. White is available here. The review of the Study provide a more analytical approach than we've articulated.
Another persepctive was produced by CSG LLC and Redexim which references additional scientific studies and is available here.
"Survival of Staphylococcus aureus on Synthetic Turf" (2008)
Two years after the first Penn State Study, another was produced to address MRSA specifically. The focus of the study was on the use of applied chemicals as a treatment on MRSA.
The study used a variety of treatment methods that included surfacants, antimicrobials, detergents (Tide), and fabric softener (Downy). They applied these treatments in a variety of schedules, including 25 days prior, 1 day prior, 1 hour prior, and 15 minutes after.
The study set up a series of test boxes for the indoor portion of the study, approximately 1 square foot (190mm x 300mm). The outdoor portion of the study used a 6 year old field surface, approximately 8 inches by 10 inches (20 cm x 25 cm).
The indoor results tended to show that the best anti-microbial technique was to apply surfacants and anti-microbial chemicals 1 hour prior to innoculation. The study concluded that commercially available cationic surfacants and detergents applied around the time of the innoculation resulted in no live bacteria after 24 hours. The problem with this conclusion is that indoor surfaces are not static enviroments and they are constantly being reintrodiced a wide range of organic contributions with every activity that uses the surface.
The outdoor results tended to show that conclusions are difficult, but that detergent and fabric softener applied to the surface around the time of inoculation seemed to reduce survival somewhat. Again, the problem with this conclusion is that a synthetic surface is not static.
Although microbial populations may be reduced when applied chemicals are used "around the time of inoculation", practical applications sheduled on a periodic basis have little effect on an active sports surface. It was interesting to note that the conclusion suggests that ultra-violet light and temperature seemed to be the most effective under the outdoor conditions.
Considering the cost of surfacant and anti-microbial treaments, a facility simply couldn't afford the daily treatment. At $2,500 a treatment (conservatively), an active facility could pay upwards of $7,500 to $10,000 per week (3-5 applications) to sanitize a synthetic field. Even if a simple detergent is applied, the cost may still be $500 to $700 per week ($25/5 gal x 20 gal/treatment x 5-7 applicatons).
Conslusions - A Better Approach
Pro-actively developing a field safety program based on UVC treatments is a simple and predictable technique for combating microbial activity. Look at the UVC Eradication discussion on this website for more information. The technology introduced through the GreenZapr allows for a virtually unlimited treatment program to keep synthetic turf systems safe and ready to use.