Non Infill Football Grass

Category: Non Infill Artificial Turf

  • How to Verify an Environmental Certification

    A certificate alone is not enough. Buyers should check five things.

    1. Check the issuing organization

    Confirm whether the document comes from:

    • An accredited testing laboratory
    • An official certification organization
    • A recognized international standards body
    • A relevant sports governing organization

    2. Check the exact product

    The report should identify the actual turf model, yarn, backing and relevant system components.

    A test report for one product should not automatically be used to represent every product manufactured by the same company.

    3. Check the test date

    Environmental and chemical testing should be sufficiently current for the procurement project.

    This is particularly important when the manufacturer has changed:

    • Yarn formulation
    • Backing materials
    • Adhesives
    • Additives
    • Manufacturing processes

    4. Check the complete system

    For a sports installation, don’t test only the grass yarn.

    The complete system may include:

    Yarn + primary backing + secondary backing + coating/adhesive + shock pad + seam materials + other installation components.

    The environmental performance of the finished installation can therefore differ from that of the yarn alone.

    5. Check recyclability claims separately

    “Recyclable” should ideally be supported by information about:

    • Material composition
    • Separation technology
    • Recycling process
    • Recycled output
    • Third-party certification or verification

  • European and American Technical Benchmarks

    For an international project, I recommend replacing a simple “Chinese standard = European standard” approach with a performance-based specification.

    A practical procurement specification could include:

    Environmental categoryRecommended international approach
    Restricted substancesREACH/SVHC screening or applicable destination-market requirements
    Heavy metalsThird-party chemical analysis according to the relevant international test method
    PAHsTest against applicable European/international restricted-substance limits
    PhthalatesTest against applicable REACH/product-specific restrictions
    VOC emissionsReport measured TVOC and formaldehyde emissions with test method
    Product safetyIndependent laboratory test of the finished turf system
    RecyclabilityDocument material composition and end-of-life recycling route
    Recycled contentDeclare percentage and source where applicable
    UV/weather resistanceAccelerated weathering and post-aging performance testing
    Mechanical durabilityAbrasion, yarn tensile strength and tuft withdrawal testing
    Football performanceFIFA Quality Programme testing where professional football certification is required

    This approach is more suitable for international buyers because it avoids presenting one national standard as if it were automatically equivalent to a European or American regulation.

    What About FIFA Certification?

    FIFA certification should also be understood correctly.

    FIFA Quality and FIFA Quality Pro are football-pitch quality marks rather than standalone “environmental certifications.”

    FIFA’s football-turf programme evaluates the complete playing system, including playing performance, safety, durability and quality assurance. Both laboratory and field testing are involved. FIFA Quality Pro represents the higher performance level intended for professional football.

    The current FIFA framework also recognizes the development of non-filled systems and incorporates sustainability-related considerations, including requirements concerning recycled content in yarn.

    This is significant for the future development of non-infill artificial turf: environmental performance is increasingly being considered alongside traditional performance indicators rather than treated as a completely separate issue.

    For major European competitions, FIFA Quality Pro certification can also become a practical requirement. For example, current UEFA competition regulations specify FIFA Quality Pro for artificial turf used in certain UEFA competitions.

  • Why Non-Infill Turf Can Have an Environmental Advantage

    The environmental advantage of non-infill artificial turf is not simply that it contains “no rubber.”

    The more important difference is the overall system architecture.

    A conventional infilled synthetic pitch may require significant quantities of sand and/or polymeric infill. During installation and operation, these materials can require additional management, and infill migration can become an environmental and maintenance concern.

    A non-infill system eliminates this additional infill component.

    That can potentially provide several benefits:

    No routine rubber infill replenishment

    There is no requirement to periodically top up rubber granules simply to maintain the intended playing characteristics.

    Reduced infill migration risk

    Because there is no loose rubber or sand infill, there is less risk of these materials being carried away through footwear, drainage systems or maintenance activities.

    Simplified maintenance

    The maintenance system can be simpler because there is no need to redistribute or replenish infill.

    Potentially easier end-of-life management

    When the turf is designed using compatible or recyclable materials, the absence of loose infill can simplify removal and recycling.

    However, non-infill does not automatically mean environmentally superior. A low-quality non-infill product made with unsuitable materials or difficult-to-recycle multilayer construction may still have environmental disadvantages.

  • What Environmental Standards Should Buyers Look For?

    There is no single universal “environmental certification for artificial turf.” Different markets use different regulations and testing systems.

    For European and international projects, commonly referenced frameworks include EU REACH, relevant product-chemical restrictions, VOC testing, heavy-metal testing, and independent laboratory assessments. Depending on the application, buyers may also request documentation relating to recyclability, recycled content, life-cycle performance, and restricted substances.

    For football facilities, FIFA’s current Football Turf Quality Programme evaluates much more than environmental characteristics. Its laboratory and field testing covers areas including playing performance, safety, durability, product composition, weather resistance and seam strength. FIFA also introduced requirements and testing developments relating to sustainability and recycled content in its newer football-turf framework.

    This means that a high-quality non-infill turf system should not be judged simply by whether the supplier uses the word “eco-friendly.”

  • Which Is Better for Different Applications?

    High-traffic residential areas

    Non-infill artificial turf can be attractive when the priority is a stable appearance and reduced routine maintenance.

    Family gardens

    Both can work.

    Natural grass may be preferable when the family values natural vegetation and has the time and resources to maintain it.

    Non-infill turf may be attractive where consistent appearance and reduced irrigation are priorities.

    Pet areas

    Non-infill turf can simplify routine cleaning because there is no loose granular infill to manage.

    However, drainage and regular cleaning remain important.

    Rooftops and terraces

    Non-infill turf can be suitable where the structural load, waterproofing, drainage and wind-resistance requirements are properly addressed.

    Parks and landscape projects

    Natural grass can provide ecological and landscape benefits that artificial turf does not replicate.

    Artificial turf may be considered for areas where intensive traffic, water limitations or maintenance requirements make natural grass difficult to sustain.

    Sports facilities

    The decision should be based on the specific sport, performance requirements, climate, maintenance resources and applicable certification/testing system.

  • Are the Standards the Same?

    No.

    The two systems are evaluated through different technical frameworks.

    For artificial turf, applicable standards may address:

    • Fiber and material properties
    • Physical performance
    • Durability
    • Water permeability
    • Backing
    • Sports-surface characteristics
    • Environmental or chemical requirements

    For sports applications, relevant EN/DIN standards, FIFA requirements and applicable ASTM or national standards may apply depending on the market and intended use.

    Natural grass is instead evaluated through considerations related to:

    • Grass species
    • Soil and growing medium
    • Drainage
    • Establishment
    • Turf quality
    • Landscape or sports-field construction
    • Irrigation and maintenance

    The exact standard should therefore be selected according to the application, country and project specification.

  • What Technical Data Should You Compare?

    Which One Costs More?

    Looking only at installation cost can produce a misleading comparison.

    Non-infill artificial turf

    The major investment generally occurs at the beginning:

    Product + site preparation + installation

    After installation, routine costs are generally concentrated in cleaning, inspection and occasional repairs.

    Natural grass

    The initial installation may be less expensive in some situations, but recurring costs can include:

    Water + mowing + fertilizer + labor + weed/pest control + reseeding + soil management

    The appropriate comparison is therefore a lifecycle cost analysis, rather than simply comparing the initial installation quotation.

    For long-term projects, a useful model is to compare:

    Initial installation + annual maintenance + water + repairs + replacement/renovation over the planned service period

    What Technical Data Should You Compare?

    The two systems cannot be evaluated using identical parameters.

    For non-infill artificial turf

    ParameterWhy it matters
    Dtex / yarn constructionHelps describe the mass and construction of the synthetic yarn
    Pile heightInfluences appearance and surface characteristics
    Tuft densityRelevant to coverage, resilience and wear characteristics
    Water permeabilityImportant for drainage
    UV/weathering performanceRelevant to outdoor durability
    Tuft retention/backing strengthImportant for fiber anchoring
    Mass per unit areaRelevant to transportation, installation and certain structural applications

    A higher Dtex value by itself does not automatically mean a better or longer-lasting product. Yarn construction, density, polymer formulation and backing all need to be considered together.

    For natural grass

    ParameterWhy it matters
    Grass species/cultivarDetermines climate adaptation and growth characteristics
    Soil conditionInfluences root development and drainage
    Irrigation systemDetermines water-management efficiency
    DrainageImportant for root health and traffic tolerance
    Establishment rateIndicates how quickly a usable lawn can develop
    Traffic toleranceImportant for high-use areas
    Seasonal adaptationDetermines performance during hot, cold or dry periods

    This is why comparing an artificial turf brochure against a natural-grass supplier’s brochure does not provide a meaningful technical comparison.

  • Why Does Artificial Turf Feel Hotter in Summer?

    This is one area where natural grass has an inherent physical advantage.

    Natural grass uses evapotranspiration, through which water moves through the plant and evaporates into the atmosphere. This can contribute to a cooler surface environment.

    Synthetic turf does not have the same biological cooling mechanism.

    Under strong sunlight, artificial turf can therefore become considerably hotter than the surrounding natural grass.

    For hot climates or barefoot residential applications, consider:

    • Shade
    • Irrigation/misting where appropriate
    • Light-colored landscaping
    • Cooling strategies
    • Limiting use during peak surface temperatures

    This is an important consideration that should not be overlooked when comparing the two systems.

    What About the Feeling Underfoot?

    Natural grass provides a distinctive combination of:

    • Soft vegetation
    • Natural soil interaction
    • Variable surface deformation
    • Biological cooling

    Non-infill turf can provide a more consistent and predictable surface, especially when combined with an appropriately designed backing or cushioning layer.

    However, not all non-infill turf feels the same.

    Two products with identical pile heights can have very different underfoot characteristics because of differences in:

    • Fiber profile
    • Fiber density
    • Dtex
    • Yarn construction
    • Backing
    • Cushioning
    • Foundation

    Therefore, buyers should request physical samples and, where relevant, performance test data rather than judging comfort from pile height alone.

  • What Happens After Rain?

    Non-Infill Artificial Turf

    A well-designed system can drain rainwater through the turf backing and underlying drainage structure.

    Recovery depends on:

    • Turf permeability
    • Backing design
    • Foundation
    • Surface slope
    • Drainage capacity
    • Rainfall intensity

    The absence of loose infill can also simplify surface maintenance after heavy rain.

    Natural Grass

    Natural grass can recover well after rain when the soil and drainage system are properly designed.

    However, saturated soil can become soft and vulnerable to:

    • Foot traffic
    • Compaction
    • Rutting
    • Mud formation
    • Turf damage

    This is particularly important on high-traffic lawns.

    Which One Is More Durable?

    It depends on how the surface is used.

    Non-infill artificial turf is designed to tolerate repeated mechanical traffic, but its service life is affected by:

    • Fiber quality
    • Fiber construction
    • Tuft density
    • UV exposure
    • Traffic intensity
    • Maintenance
    • Base stability
    • Installation quality

    Natural grass can regenerate because it is alive, but repeated traffic can exceed its recovery capacity.

    A heavily used lawn may therefore develop worn areas much faster than a lightly used ornamental lawn.

    For sports facilities, the comparison should be made using actual surface performance requirements and testing, rather than simply asking which material is “more durable.”

  • Maintenance: Artificial Turf vs. Natural Grass

    Natural grass follows a “grow and maintain” cycle

    A typical natural lawn may require:

    Planting → irrigation → mowing → fertilization → weed/pest management → aeration → seasonal recovery

    The exact programme varies considerably by grass species and climate.

    Non-infill turf follows a “install and maintain” cycle

    A typical artificial turf maintenance programme focuses on:

    Installation → cleaning → debris removal → drainage maintenance → localized repair

    This does not mean artificial turf is maintenance-free.

    Leaves, dirt, food, pet waste and other organic material still need to be removed, while drainage openings and seams should be inspected periodically.

    The difference is that maintenance is primarily surface and system maintenance rather than plant growth management.

    Water Consumption: Which Uses More Water?

    For many residential and landscaping applications, natural grass requires substantially more routine irrigation than artificial turf.

    However, the actual difference depends on:

    • Climate
    • Grass species
    • Irrigation efficiency
    • Rainfall
    • Lawn size
    • Seasonal conditions
    • Artificial turf cleaning requirements

    A non-infill lawn may require little routine irrigation, but it may still be rinsed periodically, especially in pet areas, dusty environments or hot climates.

    Therefore, “zero water” is not an appropriate universal claim.

    The more useful comparison is routine irrigation demand over the full operating period.