MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296311569 · doi:10.1016/j.envc.2022.100620

Artificial turf and crumb rubber infill: An international policy review concerning the current state of regulations

2022· article· en· W4296311569 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Challenges · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPer- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesFuel Cell Technologies ProgramMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior
KeywordsInfillCrumb rubberAgency (philosophy)LegislatureEuropean unionChinaLegislationBusinessPolitical scienceEnvironmental planningEngineeringCivil engineeringGeographyLawInternational tradeSociologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Although artificial turf fields are utilized widely around the world, sufficient research has not yet been conducted to assess the potential human and environmental health risks posed by the chemicals contained in the fields' fibers, backing, and often-used crumb rubber infill. Consequently, there is wide variation in governmental policies. Objective: Review the notable policies concerning artificial turf and crumb rubber infill in the European Union, United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada, China, Qatar, and the Global Stockholm Convention of the United Nations. Methods: Information was collected that included published papers, technical and policy reports, and grey literature. These were then analyzed by a collaborative group familiar with the environmental policies in their respective countries to extract the pertinent legislative or regulatory information. The group members were primarily identified through their involvement in publications pertinent to artificial turf and crumb rubber infill health research and included environmental health professors, active researchers, and governmental agency officials. Most information on direct policies was taken directly from reports provided to the public by various governmental agencies responsible for their countries' regulations, often available within the respective agency's online archives. Results: There are significant differences in the regulatory approaches adopted by the investigated countries with regards to artificial turf and its crumb rubber infill. Some regions, such as the European Union, have taken substantial steps to limit the fields' chemical components to which the public and environment are exposed. Other regions and countries have done far less to address the issue. Most policies relate directly to (i) the fields themselves, (ii) the microplastic components of crumb rubber infill, or (iii) the concentrations of harmful polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and heavy metals. Conclusion: While nearly every country acknowledges the potential health risks posed by heavy metals, microplastics, PAHs, and PFAS chemicals, very few have actually implemented artificial turf and crumb rubber infill regulations and/or established adequate surveillance measures to protect those regularly exposed to the fields.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it