 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
BASF's study of synthetic turf V natural turf
BASF Corporation has performed an Eco-Efficiency Analysis comparing the environmental and economical impacts of three synthetic turf athletic fields with natural turf grass alternatives, which differed only in their levels of usage or availability. Results of the analysis were verified by NSF International, Ann Arbor, Michigan against their Protocol, P-352, Validation and Verification of Eco-Efficiency Analyses.“BASF’s eco-efficiency analysis is a life cycle assessment that evaluates a broad range of environmental impacts during the production, use, and disposal of a product or process in the areas of energy and resource consumption, emissions (air, water, solid waste), toxicity and risk potential, and land use,” said Bruce Uhlman, Senior Sustainability Specialist for BASF’s Environment, Health and Safety Product Regulatory/Stewardship team in North America. “It also evaluates the life cycle costs by calculating the costs related to, at a minimum, materials, labor, manufacturing, waste disposal, and energy.”
Specific to this study, the relative performance of each alternative was measured for a defined unit of comparison which was the ability to support 600 hours of event activity on a standard 75,000 ft2 recreational sport field in a residential community over a 20 year time frame. The three synthetic turf alternatives considered were able to achieve the desired hours of availability using one field, included AstroTurf®'s PureGrass® nylon synthetic turf, their GameDay Grass™ MT41 a polyethylene synthetic turf, and their GameDay Grass™ 3D 52, a hybrid blend of nylon/polyethylene synthetic turf. The six natural turf grass alternatives differed in their annual hours of field availability, which varied from 600 hours down to 150 hours. Presenting the natural turf grass results over a broad range was an attempt to consider the high degree of variability experienced with natural turf grass availabilities due to factors such as regional climate variations, the intensity and type of event activities supported and the quality of maintenance and care.
Eco-Efficiency Analysis Results
The following overview of the Eco-Efficiency Analysis study by impact category demonstrates the breadth and complexity of the task of comparison and nature of the study results. To learn more about the specifics of BASF's eco-efficiency analysis you can visit www.basf.com/sustainability. Results fall under two broad categories: Environmental Impact Results and Economic Cost Results.
Environmental Impact Results
1. Primary Energy Consumption. PureGrass® nylon synthetic turf had the lowest energy consumption of the synthetic turf fields mostly because it had the highest durability of any of the synthetic turf fields and did not require infill. A natural turf grass field would need to support over 400 hours of events/year in order to achieve a lower energy consumption than PureGrass® turf.
2. Raw Material Consumption. All three synthetic alternatives consumed lower amounts of resources than any of the natural grass alternatives. In fact, the best performing natural turf grass alternative consumed about twice the amount of resources than any of the synthetic fields.
3. Air Emissions – Overall. When all the air emission categories were considered together (Greenhouse gases (GHG), Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP), Ozone Depletion (ODP) and Acidification Potential (AP), )., the natural turf grass field alternatives which can support more than 430 hours of activity/year were the best performers. The synthetic turf fields generally performed better as a group than the natural turf grass fields which supported less than 300 hrs/year of events. Individual components which had significant impact on air emissions were the Infill, base and yarn materials for the synthetic turf fields and the transportation and maintenance activities associated with the natural turf grass fields. Air emissions were the most relevant type of emission for this study.
4. Water Emissions. Natural turf grass fields supporting a range of 300 to 600 hours of activity per year had the lowest water emissions impact. All the synthetic alternatives performed better than turf grass which supported less than 200 hours of event activity/year. Overall, water emissions contributed less than 2% to the total environmental impact.
5. Solid Waste Generation. The two GameDay Grass™ synthetic turf alternatives generated significantly less municipal solid waste equivalents than any of the other alternatives considered because of its ability to divert a significant amount of tires from landfills and incorporate them into infill. For PureGrass® turf, which does not require infill, the largest contributor to solid waste generation was the end of life disposal of the materials which could not be recycled.
6. Land Use. When considering the impacts to the land all three synthetic turf fields had lower impacts than all of the natural turf grass alternatives.
7. Toxicity Potential. Toxicity potential is a particularly complex measure that requires close examination of the full analysis. The final results show that the natural turf grass field which can support 600-hours of activity/year had the lowest impact. Natural turf grass fields which support less than 400 hours of event activity/year had a higher human health impact than the three synthetic turf fields.
8. Risk Potential. Risk potential is also an exceptionally complex, multi-component measure that requires closer examination of the full analysis. This category considered impacts related to occupational illnesses and diseases, heat stress, risk of injuries and accidents and risks related to the maintenance and care for each alternative. Synthetic turf fields displayed a higher overall risk potential in this category than the natural turf grass fields.
When all the alternatives were considered, PureGrass®, GameDay Grass™ MT41 and the GameDay Grass™ 3D 52 synthetic turf alternatives performed well in all the main environmental categories except the risk potential category. The overall environmental performance of the natural turf grass fields was highly dependent upon it’s availability to hold events. In order to have an equivalent overall environmental impact as the synthetic field fields, the natural turf field would need to achieve an availability of 420 hours/year or greater.
Life Cycle Cost Results
Life cycle costs accounting for the installation, maintenance and disposal of all the alternatives considered were converted to a common cost metric for athletic fields: cost per event (an event was considered to be any continuous 3 hour event). The range for the synthetic fields analyzed in this study was on average $380 per event. The midpoint results for the natural turf grass alternatives considered reflects a reasonable availability for turf grass (300 to 360 hours of activity per year) and averages around $440 per event, almost 15% higher than for the synthetic turf fields.
Upon completion of this year long study, Bryan Peeples, President of AstroTurf® stated, "We were proud to be associated with this study, which from our perspective was long overdue since AstroTurf® created the industry in 1964. The results will enable us to clearly articulate the good sustainability story behind synthetic turf and help us continually improve the environmental performance of our product. This effort is consistent with other proactive efforts we have in this area such as the comprehensive safety and performance studies on-going at the Center for Safer Athletic Fields at the University of Tennessee. Results from these efforts will help us provide safer and more cost effective products and services to the public while also reducing impacts to the environment."
BASF’s eco-efficiency analysis is an award-winning and strategic tool, based on the ISO 14040 standard for lifecycle analysis, which quantifies the sustainability of products or processes. It is a comprehensive comparison of two or more products analyzed from the end use perspective. BASF’s eco-efficiency analysis tool was developed in 1996 and to date, more than 400 eco-efficiency studies have been completed globally for customers, suppliers and regulatory agencies.
“Eco-efficiency analysis is a comprehensive and quantitative tool that effectively takes a large amount of environmental and cost data and presents it in a way that supports strategic decision making and facilitates clear communication of complex information,” said Uhlman. “This analysis will support transparency and informed, science based decision making between alternatives for athletic fields.”
Information regarding eco-efficiency analysis is available at www.basf.com/group/corporate/en/sustainability/eco-efficiency-analysis/index.(2).jpg)
