Surface Temperature Experienced and Irrigation Effects on Artificial
Turf
PANAGIOTIS VYRLASa, MILTIADIS KOUTRAS, VASILEIOS LIAKOS
Department of Agrotechnology,
University of Thessaly,
Gaiopolis, Larissa 41500,
GREECE
aORCiD: 0000-0002-3617-9976
Abstract: - Artificial turf has gained widespread use in sporting fields as it is considered a water-saving and
maintenance-free alternative to natural turfgrass. However, the high surface temperatures that occur during the
day are a potentially important unfavorable feature of artificial turfgrass. The objective of this study was to
establish the temperatures experienced on an artificial turf surface and to evaluate the effect of irrigation on
artificial turf surface temperature. Data was collected over five surfaces across a sports facility on the campus
of the University of Thessaly in Larissa, Greece. Results showed surface temperatures on artificial turf (AT) as
significantly higher than running track (RT), asphalt (AS), bare soil (BS), and natural grass (NG), with
maximum surface temperatures of 72oC. Solar radiation accounted for most of the variation in surface
temperature of the artificial turf (r2=0.92) as opposed to air temperature (r2=0.38), and relative humidity
(r2=0.50). To lower surface temperature, four irrigation regimes were used (1x60 min, 1x30 min, 2x15 min, and
3x5 min water application). Irrigation reduced the surface temperature by as much as 30°C compared to the
unirrigated surface, but these low temperatures were maintained for 90 to 120 minutes long. The most effective
cooling effect occurred when water was applied in a 3-cycle, 5-minute duration, where the irrigated surface
temperature remained below the unirrigated surface throughout the time after the first watering.
Key-Words: - Synthetic turf, natural grass, sports fields, surface temperatures, solar radiation, cycling irrigation,
cooling turf, temperature amelioration.
Received: June 21, 2023. Revised: March 14, 2024. Accepted: April 17, 2024. Published: May 22, 2024.
1 Introduction
Artificial turf (also referred to as synthetic turf) is a
surfacing material engineered to mimic the
appearance and performance of natural grass on
sports surfaces, [1]. The first-generation artificial
turf made of short-pile plastic fibers was introduced
in the 1960s. The improved second-generation
products featuring sand infill between the fibers
made artificial turf widely popular in the early
1980s. The third generation (3G) artificial turf
introduced in the late 1990s is infilled with crumb
rubber or a mixture of sand and crumb rubber to
keep the plastic fibers upright and provide shock
absorption similar to that of natural grass, [1], [2],
[3].
Artificial turf is now widely used, particularly for
football fields, as a replacement for grass playing
surfaces in cases where natural grass cannot grow,
or where maintenance of natural grass is expensive
or undesired, [1]. However, the use of synthetic
surfaces in sports activities has long been debated,
particularly based on their negative environmental
and health impacts. The introduction of black
crumbed rubber infill in third-generation synthetic
turf has yielded concerns over possible increases in
surface radiant heat and associated heat-related
illnesses, [4].
Various studies have demonstrated elevated
surface temperatures on synthetic playing fields,
particularly when exposed to direct sunlight, [5]. In
a study conducted in Las Vegas, hazardous surface
temperatures (>75oC) were recorded on infilled
synthetic turf, [6]. Artificial turf surface
temperatures observed in a study conducted at the
University of Tennessee Centre for Athletic Field
ranged from -9.8 to 86.4oC at ambient air
temperatures ranging from -0.4 to 37.1oC, [7].
Research on temperatures of artificial and natural
turf sites in Hong Kong reported that on sunny days
the synthetic surface reached 72.4oC, [3], [8]. In a
study that investigated how various structural
components of AT influence temperature at the
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2024.20.20
Panagiotis Vyrlas,
Miltiadis Koutras, Vasileios Liakos
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
194
Volume 20, 2024
surface, during which 14 fields of artificial turf
located in central Spain were sampled, a
temperature variation between 57.6oC and 61.9oC,
depending on the type of fiber, infill, and usage and
the AT age, was recorded, [9]. Surface temperatures
as high as 93oC have been recorded on infilled
synthetic turf, [10].
Several studies conducted field measurements to
compare the thermal performance of artificial and
natural grass. Surface temperature is one of the most
considerable differences between AT and NT,
ranging from around 30oC to 60oC, [5], [6], [8],
[10], [11], [12].
Researchers have tried to reduce high surface
temperatures on synthetic turf by watering the turf
surface. The application of irrigation water can
significantly lower surface temperatures, but the
effects are temporary, [10], [13], [14]. At
Pennsylvania State University, various methods to
reduce surface temperatures have been evaluated
including irrigation. The tested methods were
initially successful in lowering the surface
temperature of AT but could not be maintained for
the length of standard sporting events, [5], [15].
The objective of this study was to establish the
temperatures experienced on an artificial turf
surface compared to natural grass and other surfaces
and to evaluate various irrigation regimes for
reducing the surface temperature of artificial turf.
2 Material and Methods
This study was conducted at the Sports Field of the
Gaiopolis Campus of the University of Thessaly in
the summer of 2023. The sports field used for
testing was installed in June 2023.
The surface temperature was measured on a 3G
artificial football pitch and four adjacent surfaces
(field track, asphalt, bare soil, and natural grass)
during the first week of August, where the ambient
temperature ranged from 15.0 to 38.4oC.
Measurements taken on four clear sunny days were
selected for analysis and presentation.
To evaluate the effects of various irrigation
regimes on the surface temperature of the playing
surface, water was applied through high
precipitation rate sprinklers. The treatments
included long-duration irrigation applied once
(WAT 1x), multiple short applications (WAT 2x
and WAT 3x), and no irrigation (Control).
The research plots in football pitch were circular
areas of 2 m radius and were set up at a distance
from the sidelines of the pitch to avoid edge effects.
Water was applied through a pop-up spray
sprinkler (PS-Ultra, Hunter Industries Inc.)
positioned in the center of each irrigated plot,
watering a cycle. The sprinkler head equipped with
an 8A nozzle was operated at 210 kPa and produced
a wetted radius of 2.3 m.
At least nine surface temperature measurements
were taken circularly in a 1-m distance (radius) from
the center of the circular plot. Surface temperatures
were collected immediately after irrigation and at
regular time intervals thereafter.
The research plots in the other surfaces were also
circular areas of 1 m radius. Nine surface
temperature measurements were taken within the
cycle. Data recording started at 09:00 and ended at
18:00.
All surface temperature data was collected using
an infrared thermometer (Parkside Infrared
Thermometer PTIA 1) with measuring range from -
50oC to +380oC and accuracy ±1.5oC or ±1.5% for T
> 0oC.
Data collection included air temperature, solar
radiation, mean relative humidity, and wind speed
from a meteorological station located 160 m from
the sports field.
3 Results and Discussion
3.1 Surface Temperatures
Solar radiation, air temperature, mean relative
humidity, wind speed, and surface temperatures are
plotted in Figure 1 for a 9-hour monitoring period
conducted on August 2, 2023.
The curve of solar radiation followed a bell-
shaped pattern, increasing from sunrise, peaking
between 13:00 and 14:30 hours, and declining
toward sunset. The air temperature steadily
increased over the first seven hours, peaking at
38.4oC at around 17:00 hours. The relative humidity
dropped rapidly until 14:00, as expected, then
remained steady at around 22% until the late
afternoon, while wind speed fluctuated at low
levels, exceeding 5 km/h between 14:00 and 15:00.
The highest temperatures were recorded on the
artificial turfgrass, followed by the asphalt, running
track, bare soil, and natural grass. The temperatures
of all surfaces reached their peak between 14:00 and
15:00 hours, displaying a clear difference (p<0.05)
from AT in the maximum values recorded.
As early as 09:00 hours, the AT turf surface was
already up to 39.2oC. NG temperature was only a
few degrees higher (30.0oC) than ambient (27.2oC).
At the artificial turf, moderate morning solar
radiation warms the surface material rather quickly
early in the day [3]. By noon, AT surface
temperature reached 66.0oC while air temperature
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2024.20.20
Panagiotis Vyrlas,
Miltiadis Koutras, Vasileios Liakos
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
195
Volume 20, 2024
was raised to 31.0oC. NG temperature continued to
rise slightly compared to other surfaces.
Fig. 1: Climatic parameters and surface temperatures, on August 2, 2023
The NG surface was 29.4oC cooler than AT. At
14:00, the AT surface temperature peaked at 71.6oC,
indicating a rapid thermal response to peak solar
radiation input (779 W/m2 at 13:51) with a short
time delay.
At 14:30, AT surface recorded the highest
temperature at 71.8oC surpassing asphalt (62.1oC),
running track (60.0oC), bare soil (57.5oC) and
natural grass by 30.6 degrees. At NG, the
temperature rose to its maximum of 41.2oC and soon
after, it started to fall slightly. Air temperature
continued to rise to 35.5οC. After 15:30, when solar
radiation began to decrease, drastic cooling occurred
at the AT surface, which dropped to 68.4oC at 16:00
and to 63.8oC at 17:00. All the other surfaces cooled
slower than the AT surface. Air temperature
continued to rise to the daily maximum of 38.4oC at
17:08.
At the end of the measuring session (18:00), all
surface temperatures dropped noticeably in
comparison with 17:00. All but NG temperatures
were still higher than air temperature (36.2oC) with
the former being slightly cooler (34.8oC) than
ambient. Both the climatic parameters and the
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2024.20.20
Panagiotis Vyrlas,
Miltiadis Koutras, Vasileios Liakos
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
196
Volume 20, 2024
temperatures of the various surfaces showed the
same trend during the 4 days of measurements with
a clear sky.
Results indicated that the temperature-time
curves of all surfaces replicated a bell-shaped curve,
with surface temperatures increasing quickly in the
morning hours and decreasing in the early hours of
the evening, with the maximum temperatures
recorded at midafternoon for all the surfaces. The
temperature on the artificial turf surface was higher
than all other surfaces throughout the day. The
temperature curve of grass indicates that it is less
affected by environmental conditions.
Table 1 summarizes the data recorded over the
four sunny days of the trial. The monitoring surfaces
reached different maximum temperatures. The
descending sequence of mean maximum
temperature was: artificial turf (72.2oC) > asphalt
(62.3oC) > running track (60.3oC) > bare soil
(58.6oC) > natural grass (41.3oC). The surface
temperature of the synthetic turf was 11.1oC higher
than asphalt, 11.9oC than running track, 14.3oC than
bare soil, and 31.8oC hotter than natural grass.
The artificial turf surface presented extreme
temperatures exceeding 70oC after midday. Such a
hot sports field surface carries a high heat-related
health risk, [12], [15], [16], [17]. On infilled
synthetic turf fields, temperatures ranging from 70
to 93oC have been reported, [3], [5], [6], [7], [10],
[14], [18].
The natural grass surface kept its maximum
temperature below 42oC, just 4-5 degrees higher
than the ambient temperature. The recorded
temperatures were 10oC lower than AT throughout
the day. Surface temperature is considered one of
the most considerable microclimate differences
between AT and NT.
Several studies have conducted field
measurements to compare surface temperatures of
artificial turf with natural grass surfaces under
various conditions. The information shows that the
surface temperature of artificial turf can be greater
than that of natural grass, and, in some cases,
artificial fields exhibited surface temperatures that
were up to 38oC higher than those on natural turf,
[5], [10], [19].
The average surface temperature difference
between AT and NT in this study (31.8oC) was
lower than the findings of [6] who found AT surface
temperature 38.4oC higher than irrigated natural
turfgrass but higher than others that recorded 21.5oC
[10], 24.8oC [18], and 22.2oC [16]. On-site
measurements at the sports center of the University
of Hong Kong reported AT-NT maximum
differences from 32.1oC to 37.6oC at surface
temperature, on three sunny summer days, [3], [8],
[12].
The reported differences in thermal effect could
be attributed to variations in background weather
conditions, artificial turf material and design, and
natural grass species, [12]. The AT-NT difference in
thermal effect is mainly due to their specific
thermodynamic properties, which affect their
surface thermal admittance. Unlike natural grass,
which has evaporative cooling properties, artificial
turf is made up of heat-retaining materials that
contribute to elevated surface temperatures.
Surface temperatures were plotted as a function
of solar radiation, air temperature, and relative
humidity in Figure 2. It is evident that increases in
solar radiation and air temperature are associated
with increased surface temperatures, while relative
humidity appears to be inversely related to surface
temperature, with higher temperatures associated
with lower humidity levels.
Solar radiation accounted for most of the
variation in surface temperature of the artificial turf
(r2 = 0.92) as opposed to air temperature (r2 = 0.38),
and relative humidity (r2 =0.50). When surface
temperatures were regressed against air temperature,
good linear relationships existed only for asphalt
(r2>0.83). However, for the artificial turfgrass, only
38% of the variation in the surface temperature
could be accounted for based on the air temperature.
Table 1. Comparison of different surfaces' temperatures with AT (oC)
Time
AT
Track-AT
Asphalt-AT
Soil-AT
Grass-AT
9:00
39.9
(0.65)
-3.1
(0.39)
-3.3
(0.32)
-6.3
(0.50)
-10.1
(0.78)
10:00
50.6
(0.39)
-7.2
(0.22)
-7.3
(0.23)
-9.2
(0.71)
-18.2
(1.28)
11:00
59.7
(1.36)
-9.3
(0.35)
-10.3
(0.75)
-12.0
(0.37)
-24.7
(1.37)
12:00
65.8
(0.82)
-10.9
(0.73)
-10.8
(0.83)
-12.6
(0.78)
-28.9
(1.41)
13:00
70.8
(0.23)
-11.3
(0.15)
-11.1
(0.55)
-13.7
(0.75)
-31.8
(1.11)
14:00
72.2
(1.17)
-11.9
(1.67)
-10.7
(1.27)
-14.3
(1.54)
-31.8
(1.59)
15:00
70.8
(1.01)
-11.1
(1.37)
-8.5
(1.31)
-12.2
(2.21)
-29.5
(1.39)
16:00
65.7
(2.93)
-7.6
(3.04)
-4.5
(2.99)
-9.4
(3.16)
-25.8
(3.11)
17:00
59.2
(3.96)
-5.3
(2.26)
-0.7
(3.04)
-6.3
(2.65)
-21.7
(4.34)
18:00
49.3
(2.14)
-0.7
(2.23)
4.2
(2.58)
-3.1
(2.21)
-14.8
(2.11)
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2024.20.20
Panagiotis Vyrlas,
Miltiadis Koutras, Vasileios Liakos
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
197
Volume 20, 2024
In the case of natural grass, only 67% of the
variation in the surface temperature can be
attributed solely to the measurement of solar
radiation, 68% to air temperature, and 76% to
relative humidity.
Similar findings were presented by [6] who
reported that solar radiation (r2 = 0.95) accounted
for the majority of the variation in infilled synthetic
turf surface temperature, even more than air
temperature (r2 = 0.32).
The surface temperatures of five sport surfaces,
artificial and natural turf included, increased with
solar illuminance, [18]. A study by [20] aimed to
compare the surface temperature of a range of 34
different synthetic turf products, revealed that the
surface temperature of all the tested products was
largely influenced by ambient temperature and solar
radiation, with relative humidity having a medium
effect.
Fig. 2: Surface temperature's relationship with weather parameters
R² = 0.92 R² = 0.75 R² = 0.52 R² = 0.72 R² = 0.67
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Surface Temperature (oC)
Solar Radiation (W/m2)
Artificial Turf Track Asphalt Bare soil Natural grass
R² = 0.38 R² = 0.62 R² = 0.83 R² = 0.65 R² = 0.68
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Surface Temperature (oC)
Air Temperature (oC)
Artificial Turf Track Asphalt Bare soil Natural grass
R² = 0.50 R² = 0.74 R² = 0.91 R² = 0.76 R² = 0.76
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Surface Temperature (oC)
Mean Relative Humidity (%)
Artificial Turf Track Asphalt Bare soil Natural grass
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2024.20.20
Panagiotis Vyrlas,
Miltiadis Koutras, Vasileios Liakos
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
198
Volume 20, 2024
3.2 Irrigation Effects
The effects of irrigation are apparent at the post-
watering temperature readings. The application of
water initially lowered substantially the surface
temperature in all treatments (Figure 3). The
temperature of the surface after irrigation was
statistically lower than the pre-irrigation one, for
each rating time and all treatments, on all trial dates.
Irrigation reduced surface temperature by as
much as 30oC compared to the control. However,
the temperature rebounded rather quickly, returning
to control after about 90 minutes.
Fig. 3: Surface temperatures of non-irrigated (control) and irrigated (WAT) artificial turf as a function of time.
The light blue rectangles correspond to the time interval of irrigation
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Surface
Temperature (oC)
Control
WAT 1x
(a)
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Surface
Temperature (oC)
Control
WAT 1x
(b)
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Surface
Temperature (oC)
Control
WAT 1x
(c)
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Surface
Temperature (oC)
Control
WAT 2x
(d)
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00
Surface
Temperature (oC)
Time (hours)
Control
WAT 3x
(e)
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2024.20.20
Panagiotis Vyrlas,
Miltiadis Koutras, Vasileios Liakos
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
199
Volume 20, 2024
Long duration (1 hour) water application at
13:30 was not effective since temperature rose to
high values at the time the practice is presumed to
begin (15:00) (Figure 3a).
Shifting the irrigation for 30 min (at 14:00)
produced better temperature conditions at the start
time of practice but the temperature recovered to
90% of the control surface temperature at that point
(Figure 3b).
The 30-minute shift in irrigation timing (at
14:00) resulted in improved temperature conditions
at the beginning of the practice. However, the
temperature recovered to 90% of the control surface
temperature by that time.
Irrigation of 30 minutes ending at 15:00 has
almost the same effect as the 1-hour duration
(Figure 3c), indicating that irrigation duration was
not a critical factor in the cooling process. This is
probably because playing fields are purposely
constructed in such a way that water drains quickly
through the synthetic surface. The watered area soon
dries out on the surface and temperatures quickly
increase as the sun heats the dry surface, [13].
In WAT 2x treatment (Figure 3d), where water
was applied in a 2-cycle short duration (10 min) at
14:50 and 16:50, the surface temperature dropped in
the same manner and level as in 1x treatments and
returned to control before the second cycle start.
Irrigation effects produced by the second irrigation
cycle (16:50) lasted for a longer period compared to
the initial one. This was probably due to the
radiation being reduced at these hours of the day.
The best cooling effect occurred when water was
applied in a 3-cycle short duration (5 min) each hour
from 15:00 until 17:00 (Figure 3e). The Irrigated
surface's temperature remained below of control
temperature throughout the time, after the first water
application and even required less water.
While it is well documented that artificial turf
can have elevated surface temperatures during
periods of high solar intensity, limited peer-
reviewed works have focused on irrigating the
synthetic turf surface to lower these surface
temperatures.
After 30 min of irrigation on an infilled synthetic
turf, the surface temperature was lowered to 29oC.
However, the surface temperature rose very quickly,
and within 5 min of ending irrigation, the surface
temperature measured 49oC, [10].
A similar response with 20 mm of irrigation
lowered the surface temperature by 30°C for only 20
min for both infilled and non-infilled synthetic turf.
Although temperatures increased after 20 min,
irrigation kept synthetic surfaces 10oC cooler than
non-irrigated synthetic turf for 3 h, [5], [15].
In Penn State’s Center for Sports Surface
Research study, on the effects of various irrigation
regimes on the surface temperature of AT,
temperatures did not rebound as quickly when a
higher amount of water was applied compared to a
lighter amount, and double, heavy (20 mm)
irrigation revealed as the most effective regime for
irrigating synthetic turf for surface temperature
reduction, [14].
In an experiment conducted at New Mexico State
University to evaluate the amount of water required
to maintain surface temperatures, 20 minutes of
irrigation did decrease surface temperatures
dramatically for a short period (from 20 to 70 min,
depending on solar radiation intensity). After that,
the temperatures rebounded somewhat but the
surface remained cooler than nonirrigated surfaces
for about 3 hours, [21].
Where artificial turf sports fields are installed,
managers need to consider the effect of the elevated
surface temperatures and apply management
strategies to address this critical health issue in their
heat policies. Such strategies could include
changing the time of day play is scheduled,
additional mandatory hydration and cooling breaks,
and more frequent player interchanges or
substitutions, [12]. To avoid undue heat stress,
artificial turf use can only be recommended for
certain site weather and user-activity scenarios, [22].
4 Conclusion
The findings indicate that artificial turf surfaces
exhibit significantly higher surface temperatures
compared to natural grass surfaces and that the
intensity of solar radiation is the primary
determinant of surface temperatures experienced.
Artificial turf was also found to produce a
substantially higher surface temperature than
running track, asphalt, and bare soil.
The temperature problem on artificial turf fields
is manageable with irrigation. The experimental
results, however, indicated brief cooling, referring
to long-duration irrigation that was applied once.
Under the conditions of this trial, short-duration,
cycling water application, seems the most effective
regime for irrigating artificial turf for surface
temperature reduction.
These preliminary results prompted a more
comprehensive examination of the irrigation
protocols employed to cool the artificial turf. In
future works, technological solutions can be
employed for more accurate data collection, and it
would be valuable to include studies on the heating
effect under a range of seasonal environmental
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2024.20.20
Panagiotis Vyrlas,
Miltiadis Koutras, Vasileios Liakos
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
200
Volume 20, 2024
conditions and the assessment of material aging and
compaction impact on the surface temperature of
artificial turf fields.
References:
[1] Cheng, H., Y. Hu, M. Reinhard,
Environmental and Health Impacts of
Artificial Turf: A Review, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 48, 2014, pp. 2114-2129,
[2] Serensits, T.J., A.S. McNitt, J.C. Sorochan,
Synthetic turf, In: J.C. Stier, B.P. Horgan,
S.A. Bonos, editors, Turfgrass: Biology, Use,
and Management, American Society of
Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America,
and Crop Science Society of America.
Madison, WI, 2013.
[3] Jim, C. Y., Intense Summer Hat Fluxes in
Artificial Turf Harm People and Environment,
Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 2017,
pp. 561-576,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.
012.
[4] Howe, A.S., B.P. Boden, Heat-Related Illness
in Athletes, The American Journal of Sports
Medicine, 35(8), 2007, pp. 1384-1395,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546507305013.
[5] McNitt, A.S., D.M. Petrunak, T.J. Serensits,
Temperature Amelioration of Synthetic Turf
Surfaces through Irrigation, Acta Hortic.
(ISHS), 783, 2008, pp. 573-582,
https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.783.
59.
[6] Devitt, D.A., M.H. Young, M. Baghzouz,
B.M Bird, Surface Temperature, Heat
Loading and Spectral Reflectance of Artificial
Turfgrass, Journal of Turfgrass and Sports
Surface Science, 83, 2007, pp. 68-82.
[7] Thoms, A.W., J.T. Brosnan, J.M. Zidek, J.C.
Sorochan, Models for Predicting Surface
Temperatures on Synthetic Turf Playing
Surfaces, Procedia Engineering, Vol.72,
2014, pp. 895-900,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.06.153 .
[8] Jim, C.Y., Solar–terrestrial Radiant-energy
Regimes and Temperature Anomalies of
Natural and Artificial Turfs, Applied energy,
173, 2016, pp. 520–534,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.04.07
2.
[9] Villacañas, V., J. Sánchez-Sánchez, J. García-
Unanue, J. López, L. Gallardo. The influence
of various types of artificial turfs on football
fields and their effects on the thermal profile
of surfaces. Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of
Sports Engineering and Technology, 231(1),
2017, pp. 21-32,
https://doi.org/10.1177/1754337115624819.
[10] Williams, C.F., G.E. Pulley, Synthetic Surface
Heat Studies, 2002, available at
https://plantscience.psu.edu/research/centers/s
src/research/synthetic-turf-surface-
temperature (accessed Jan. 2021).
[11] Guyer, H., M. Georgescu, D.M. Hondula, F.
Wardenaar, J. Vanos, Identifying the Need for
Locally-observed Wet Bulb Globe
Temperature Across Outdoor Athletic Venues
for Current and Future Climates in a Desert
Environment, Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 2021,
124042, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
9326/ac32fb.
[12] Liu, Z., C.Y. Jim, Playing on Natural or
Artificial Turf Sports Field? Assessing Heat
Stress of Children, Young Athletes, and
Adults in Hong Kong, Sustainable Cities and
Society, Vol. 75, 2021, 103271,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103271.
[13] Minner, D., If You Can’t Take the Heat,
SportsTurf Magazine, Vol.20, No.11, 2004, p.
42.
[14] Penn State’s Center for Sports Surface
Research, The Effect of Irrigation on
Synthetic Turf Characteristics: Surface
Temperature, Soccer Ball Roll, and Traction,
Progress Report, 2015, available at
https://plantscience.psu.edu/research/centers/s
src/research/synthetic-turf-surface-
temperature (accessed Jan. 2021).
[15] Serensits, T.J., A.S. McNitt, D.M. Petrunak,
Human Health Issues on Synthetic Turf in the
USA, Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part P, Journal of
Sports Engineering and Technology, 225(3),
2011, pp. 139-146,
https://doi.org/10.1177/1754337111398407.
[16] Twomey, D., L. Petrass, J. Harvey, L. Otago,
P. LeRossignol, Heat Experienced on
Synthetic Turf Surfaces: An Inevitable or
Preventable risk? Journal of Science and
Medicine in Sport, Vol. 18, Supplement 1,
2014, pp. e119-e120,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2014.11.086.
[17] Petrass, L.A., D.M. Twomey, J.T. Harvey, L.
Otago, P. LeRossignol, Comparison of
Surface Temperatures of Different Synthetic
Turf Systems and Natural Grass: Have
Advances in Synthetic Turf Technology Made
a Difference, Journal of Sports Engineering
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2024.20.20
Panagiotis Vyrlas,
Miltiadis Koutras, Vasileios Liakos
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
201
Volume 20, 2024
and Technology, 229, 2014, 1–7,
https://doi.org/10.1177/1754337114553692.
[18] Aoki, T., Solar Illuminance and Albedo on
Surface Temperature of Outdoor Sport
Surfaces, Nature and its Environment, 11,
2009, pp. 40-48.
[19] Adamson, C., B. Fresenburg, Synthetic Turf
Playing Fields Present Unique Dangers,
College of Agriculture, Food and Natural
Resources (CAFNR), 2005, University of
Missouri.
[20] Petrass, L.A., D.M. Twomey, J.T. Harvey,
Understanding how the Components of a
Synthetic Turf System Contribute to Increased
Surface Temperature, Procedia Engineering,
72, 2014, pp. 943–948,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.06.159.
[21] Kanaan, A., E. Sevostianova, B. Leinauer, I.
Sevostianov, Water Requirements for Cooling
Artificial Turf, J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020,
146(10):05020004,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-
4774.0001506.
[22] Shi, Y., C.Y. Jim, Developing a Thermal
Suitability Index to Assess Artificial Turf
Applications for Various Site-weather and
User-activity Scenarios, Landscape and
Urban Planning, Volume 217, 2022, 104276,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.10
4276.
Contribution of Individual Authors to the
Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting
Policy)
The authors equally contributed in the present
research, at all stages from the formulation of the
problem to the final findings and solution.
Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a
Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself
No funding was received for conducting this study.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
_US
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2024.20.20
Panagiotis Vyrlas,
Miltiadis Koutras, Vasileios Liakos
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
202
Volume 20, 2024
