ArticleHeliyon2019
Artificial-turf surfaces for sport and recreational activities: microbiota analysis and 16S sequencing signature of synthetic vs natural soccer fields.
Article in Heliyon, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Dog Preference Between Artificial and Natural Turf Grasses.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Playgrounds as microbial interfaces: strategies to enhance soil microbiomes and support healthy childhoods.mSystems · 2026Review
- Monitoring COVID-19 Transmission Risks by Quantitative Real-Time PCR Tracing of Droplets in Hospital and Living Environments.mSphere · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Synthetic fibres are used in place of the natural grass worldwide, for realizing playgrounds, soccer fields and even domestic gardens or recreational structures. An intensive use of artificial turf is currently observed in sports facilities, due to lower costs, higher sustainability in recycling of materials, and advantages related to athletic practice and performance. However, even if chemical and physical risks were studied, the microbiological component was not fully addressed, especially considering a comprehensive evaluation of the microbiota in synthetic vs natural playground surfaces. Here, we investigated the microbial community present on soccer fields, using Next Generation Sequencing and a 16S amplicon sequencing approach. Artificial and natural turfs show own ecosystems with different microbial profiles and a mean Shannon's diversity value of 2.176 and 2.475, respectively. The bacterial community is significantly different between facilities (ANOSIM: R = 0.179; p < 0.001) and surface materials (ANOSIM: R = 0.172; p < 0.005). The relative abundance of potentially pathogenic bacterial OTUs was higher in synthetic than in natural samples (ANOVA, F = 2.2). Soccer fields are characterized by their own microbiota, showing a different 16S amplicon sequencing signature between natural and artificial turfs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.