Evidence of staph on fields problematical

I was very much impressed by your article entitled, “Safety Issue or Unnecessary Expense?” The article does a good job of demonstrating why the public benefits from educated sports turf managers. I know that in your capacity with AthelticTurf.net you join with turfgrass educators and sports turf managers associations in encouraging the dissemination of sound research based information in order to allow the consumer to make informed decisions.

Ron, I agree with you that I have yet to be made aware of a study indicating that Staphylococcus aureus survives or ‘thrives’ for any period of time in an infilled synthetic turf field. As a matter of fact, I don’t think it’s ever been reported that methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has even been found on infilled synthetic turf surfaces much less passed on to another person through contact with the field. The Centers for Disease Control does not list synthetic turf playing surfaces in their warning about acquiring MRSA through competitive sports (http://www.miaa.net/CDCwarning.pdf) and a posting on their current website (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/ar_mrsa_ca_public.html#10) states that:

 “In the outbreaks of MRSA, the environment has not played a significant role in the transmission of MRSA. MRSA is transmitted most frequently by direct skin-to-skin contact. You can protect yourself from infections by practicing good hygiene (e.g., keeping your hands clean by washing with soap and water or using an alcohol-based hand rub and showering after working out); covering any open skin area such as abrasions or cuts with a clean dry bandage; avoiding sharing personal items such as towels or razors; using a barrier (e.g., clothing or a towel) between your skin and shared equipment; and wiping surfaces of equipment before and after use.”

While I very much enjoy a good scientific debate about the real meaning of research data, the article posted on Athleticturf.net entitled “Supplier faults staph-on-synthetics study” presents no countering data on which we could constructively conduct a debate.

A press release posted on the company's website sounds the alarm by stating, “According to the March 5th Mercury News article ‘Sports Scourge’ about Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in sports facilities ‘Public health officials say that locker rooms and fields of play have become havens for the resourceful bacterium’.”

The company’s article, posted on your website criticizes the Penn State study where we failed to find any Staphylococcus aureus on playing fields saying that our sample size was so small that it would be “the equivalent of determining that no sharks live in the ocean because you looked underwater once and saw fish…but no sharks”. For this company to suggest that everyone spray their product on all synthetic fields to prevent MRSA, when none has ever been found, is equivalent to suggesting that everyone use this company’s shark repellent in their backyard swimming pool because we know that sharks can live in water.

We never stated that it was impossible for MRSA to stay alive on infilled synthetic turf for a short period of time, we just didn’t find any and to my knowledge neither has anyone else. The bottom line to the study conducted by Penn State University is that, using the methods described, we found low microbial populations (sometimes zero) on synthetic surfaces compared to natural turfgrass systems, and we found no Staphylococcus aureus of any type. These systems are not ‘havens’ for MRSA. The press release from Penn State was an attempt to dampen some of the hysteria generated by articles in the popular press and on athleticturf.net insinuating that MRSA is thriving in infilled synthetic turf systems.

Certainly, larger and more frequent sample sizes would be preferred, but using one gram samples to characterize the gross microbial population of granular materials is not uncommon.

The Penn State study is really a survey to begin the process of characterizing the microbial populations of actively used indoor and outdoor infilled surfaces. It is simply a first step in this characterization and I welcome future independent research on the subject. Ron, I think you’ll agree that the best long-term solution to public health is the cooperation between the private sector, the media and public research institutions to both identify public health issues and evaluate the efficacy of varying prevention strategies. If someday, it’s determined that MRSA is a significant issue on synthetic turf, I will welcome research indicating which disinfectants should be applied at what rates and with what frequency to effectively control the bacterium.

Until that day if someone wants to spray disinfectants on their synthetic turf fields and they’ve been proven safe for the athletes and turf systems, fine. But if they hope to create a completely sterile playing surface, good luck!