Influence of the structural components of artificial turf systems on impact attenuation in amateur football players

Impact Deceleration Differences on Natural Grass Versus Synthetic Turf High School Football Fields

American football has the highest rate of concussions in United States high school sports. Within American football, impact against the playing surface is the second-most common mechanism of injury. The objective of this study was to determine if there is a difference in impact deceleration between natural grass and synthetic turf high school football fields. A Century Body Opponent Bag (BOB) manikin was equipped with a Riddell football helmet and 3 accelerometers were placed on the forehead, apex of the head, and right ear. The manikin was dropped from a stationary position onto its front, back, and left side onto natural grass (n = 10) and synthetic turf (n = 9) outdoor football fields owned and maintained by public and private institutions on O'ahu, Hawai'i. Data was collected on 1,710 total drops. All accelerometers in forward and backward falls, and 1 accelerometer in side falls showed significantly greater impact deceleration on synthetic turf compared to the natural grass surfaces (P < .05). The results of this study provide evidence-based rationale to inform youth sports policies, particularly those aimed at injury prevention through safer playing environments and equipment.

Influence of the artificial turf certification on physical performance and muscle damage in football players (QUALTURF PROJECT)

This study aimed to analyse the influence of the FIFA Quality PRO certification of artificial turf pitches on the physical, physiological performance and muscle damage in soccer players. Fifteen healthy male players (21.2 ± 1.4 years; 178.2 ± 4.3 cm; 79.1 ± 8.3 kg) from a university football team were selected to participate in the research. Mechanical properties related to surface-player interaction were assessed on the two surfaces selected for this study. A randomized design was used and the players performed the Ball-sport Endurance and Sprint Test (BEAST90) on the different artificial turf fields. Average time of the 20 m sprints was longer on the FIFA Quality Pro surface than on the non-certified pitch (+ 0.13 s; p < 0.05; CI 95% - 0.01 to 0.27; ES: 0.305). The players' perceived effort was higher in the first (+ 2.64; p < 0.05; CI 95% 0.92 to 4.35; ES: 1.421) and the second half (+ 1.35; p < 0.05; CI 95% - 0.02 to 2.72; ES: 0.637) of the test on the FIFA Quality Pro field. Comparative analysis between surfaces showed no significant differences in the time spent in each of the heart rate zones and higher concentrations of CK (+ 196.58; p > 0.05; CI 95% 66.54 to 326.61; ES: 1.645) were evidenced in the non-certified pitch surface. In response to a simulated match protocol, markers of post-exercise muscle damage may be reduced on accredited artificial turf fields. These insights can provide the opportunity to maximize the efficiency of training sessions and reduce the risk of injury during the season.

A Proposed Method to Assess the Mechanical Properties of Treadmill Surfaces

The aim of this study was to define a reliable and sensitive test method for assessing Shock Absorption (SA), Vertical Deformation (VD), and Energy Restitution (ER) in treadmill surfaces. A total of 42 treadmills belonging to four different models were included in the study: (a) Technogym Jog700 Excite (n = 10), (b) Technogym Artis Run (n = 12), (c) LifeFitness Integrity Series 97T (n = 11), and (d) LifeFitness Integrity Series DX (n = 9). An advanced artificial athlete (AAA) device was used to assess SA, VD, and ER at three different locations along the longitudinal axis of each treadmill and in the support area of the athletes’ feet. For each location, our results show that the error assumed when performing one impact with the AAA instead of three (SA ≤ |0.1|%, VD ≤ |0.0| mm, and ER ≤ |0.2|%) is lower than the smallest changes that can be detected by the measuring device (SA = 0.4%, VD = 0.2 mm, and ER = 0.9%). Also, our results show the ability of the test method to detect meaningful differences between locations once the one-impact criterium is adopted, since absolute minimum differences between zones (SA: |0.6|%, VD: |0.3| mm, and ER: |1.2|%) were above the uncertainty of the measuring device. Therefore, performing a single impact with the AAA in each of the three locations described in this study can be considered a representative and reliable method for assessing SA, VD, and ER in treadmill surfaces.