Intentionally Added Microplastics & Artificial Pitches
Microplastics are building up across the UK’s environment, in our rivers[1], soils[2], wildlife[3], and everyday spaces[4]. Some of the most overlooked sources are intentionally added microplastics (IAMs); small plastic particles deliberately manufactured to be under 5mm in size. These include things like plastic pellets (or nurdles) as well as materials such as rubber crumb infill used on artificial sports pitches.
Because these microplastics are designed to be small, they are easily lost, spread, and are almost impossible to fully recover once released, persisting in the environment for a long time.
Fidra’s intentionally added microplastics project shines a light on this overlooked source of plastic pollution with a focus on one of the most prevalent sources – rubber crumb infill from artificial sports pitches[5]. We are calling for a wide‑ranging restriction on intentionally added microplastics, including rubber crumb and other microplastic infill, to stop easily preventable sources of microplastic pollution entering the UK environment.
Artificial pitches & microplastic pollution
Did you know that artificial pitches can be a major source of microplastic pollution? Artificial pitches are increasingly popular around the UK, but it is not always clear that the small black granules on their surface are plastics. These microplastics are usually made from ground-up old tyres, known as rubber crumb, and can contain harmful chemicals that leach out, worsening their impact on the environment.
Overtime, rubber crumb can be steadily lost from the pitch surface[6], [7]. It can be carried away on footwear and sports equipment, moved during maintenance, or washed and blown into the surrounding environment by rain and wind. This means rubber crumb plastics, along with the chemicals they contain such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), heavy metals and plasticizers, can accumulate in nearby soils and waterways, where they persist and can cause harm to ecosystems[8], [9]. Rubber crumb has been found to be toxic to multiple fish species[10], marine plankton[11], and can cause oxidative stress and tissue damage in earth worms[12]. Additionally, rubber crumbs associated chemicals have been found to inhibit growth in some freshwater plant species[13].
A report commissioned by the UK government identified artificial sports pitches as the single largest source of intentionally added microplastics (excluding plastic pellets) entering the UK environment[5]. It estimated that 16,866 tonnes of microplastics from pitches could be released over a 20-year period. The report also found that microplastics from pitches contaminate urban and agricultural soils, as well as freshwater environments, across the UK.
The problem with microplastic pollution
Rubber crumb and other intentionally added microplastics are contributing to wider plastic pollution in the UK. Microplastics are now widespread across ecosystems, harming wildlife through ingestion and toxicity, transporting hazardous chemicals, and contributing to long term environmental contamination impacting the circular economy.
Microplastics have become extremely pervasive in all environmental mediums, from the ocean to farmland soils resulting in significant negative impacts. An estimated 1.5–4% of all plastics produced globally enter the ocean each year[14], and research shows over 700 marine species have ingested plastic debris, including microplastics[15]. When animals consume microplastics, the particles can accumulate in the stomach, creating a false sense of fullness[16]. Over time, this can lead to reduced feeding, starvation, physical injury to organs, and ultimately death.
Plastics are associated with a vast range of chemicals. More than 13,000 chemicals are associated with plastics and plastic production, including toxic chemicals like Microplastics can also adsorb and act as carriers for other contaminants such as metals, PCBs, dioxins and PAHs, facilitating their movement and release into the environment[17], [18]. When chemicals adsorb to plastic particles, they can be transported between environmental compartments, moving from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems and up food chains, enhancing their persistence and potential toxicity in the environment[19]. They can also impact the bioavailability of adsorbed chemicals when microplastics are ingested by organisms[20]. For example, the toxic chemicals and metals in rubber crumb can be desorbed or leached out of infill materials in quantities that harm the environment and wildlife[21].
Microplastics have been widely detected throughout the human body including in blood[22], placenta[23], reproductive organs[24], [25], breast milk[23] and tumour tissue[26], raising concerns about their effects on health. Evidence suggests microplastics may disrupt hormonal function and fertility, with human studies linking microplastics in semen to reduced sperm quality and showing damage to ovarian follicles[27], [28]. Research also indicates associations between microplastic exposure, inflammation and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, suggesting a potential role in worsening heart disease[29]. In addition, microplastics can trigger inflammation, oxidative stress and DNA damage, mechanisms linked to cancer development, with reviews suggesting elevated risks for diseases including colorectal cancer[30], [31]. Collectively, plastic related health impacts are estimated to cost the global economy more than $1.5 trillion each year[32].
Beyond the environmental and human health impacts, IAM pollution undermines the principles of a circular economy. Rubber crumb is often promoted as a form of recycling because it makes use of waste tyres, but this is ultimately shifting the problem of disposal down the supply chain. Once microplastics spread into the environment they become hard to recover and cannot be reused or recycled. Instead of keeping materials in a closed, clean and controlled loop, intentionally added microplastics are polluting the environment. This loss of material value, combined with the long-term environmental damage highlights how microplastic containing products conflict with circular economy goals and why preventing avoidable releases at source is essential.
Alternatives to artificial pitches
Natural grass remains the preferred surface due to its benefits for biodiversity, climate resilience and player wellbeing, and continues to be used in many professional and community sports settings. Where artificial surfaces are needed, infill‑free systems (sometimes called 4G pitches) are being adopted in schools and sports centres as they avoid loose materials like rubber crumb, however, it is still recognised that synthetic fibres may shed microplastics[35]. For pitches that require infill, there is a growing shift towards natural or biodegradable materials that provide comparable performance with reduced environmental harm and easier end of life management[36]. These are already in use in some pitches across the UK and can include materials such as cork, olive stone, wood, walnut shell and mixed organic blends.
Resources
A Quick Win: Ending microplastic pollution from sports pitches and beyond
Intentionally added microplastics (IAMs) are an overlooked and widespread source of microplastic pollution in the UK. This briefing outlines why the UK must introduce a comprehensive restriction on IAMs, including infill used for artificial sports pitches.
Published: July 2026
Author: Fidra
Call for evidence on microplastics
Fidra’s response to the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) call for evidence on Microplastics highlights significant sources of pollution in the UK including microplastics from artificial sports pitches.
Published: February 2026
Author: Fidra
EU restriction consultation response
Fidra’s consultation response to the European’s Chemical Agency’s (ECHA) proposal to restrict intentionally added microplastics in products.
Published: May 2019
Author: Fidra
Defra report states artificial pitches are the main source of intentionally added microplastic pollution in the UK
Fidra are calling for a broad restriction on the use of intentionally added microplastics, as seen in the EU. This should include artificial pitches as the most significant source of intentionally added microplastic pollution in the UK.
PFAS in artificial turf: the grass isn’t greener on the artificial side
Recent research has shown that PFAS lurks in the plastic blades of grass used in artificial turf sports pitches.
Landmark Decision – Intentionally-added microplastic restrictions are to be adopted by the EU
On the 26th of April the European Commission voted to adopt the intentionally-added microplastics restriction proposal. What does this mean and when will the ban come into effect?
References
[1] M. Strokal, P. Vriend, M. P. Bak, C. Kroeze, J. van Wijnen, and T. van Emmerik, “River export of macro- and microplastics to seas by sources worldwide,” Nature Communications 2023 14:1, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 4842-, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-40501-9.
[2] “Plastic planet: How tiny plastic particles are polluting our soil.” Accessed: Jun. 12, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/plastic-planet-how-tiny-plastic-particles-are-polluting-our-soil
[3] E. Jeong, J. Y. Lee, and M. Redwan, “Animal exposure to microplastics and health effects: A review,” Emerg. Contam., vol. 10, no. 4, p. 100369, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/J.EMCON.2024.100369.
[4] “Microplastics Everywhere | Harvard Medicine Magazine.” Accessed: Jun. 12, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://magazine.hms.harvard.edu/articles/microplastics-everywhere
[5] “Option Appraisal for Intentionally Added Microplastics – CB04121.” Accessed: Jun. 12, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=21802
[6] K. Savva, M. Llorca, X. Borrell, O. Bertran-Solà, M. Farré, and T. Moreno, “Granulated rubber in playgrounds and sports fields: A potential source of atmospheric plastic-related contaminants and plastic additives after runoff events,” J. Hazard. Mater., vol. 479, p. 135697, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.135697.
[7] J. Fořt et al., “Environmental Consequences of Rubber Crumb Application: Soil and Water Pollution,” Polymers (Basel)., vol. 14, no. 7, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.3390/polym14071416.
[8] F. O. Gomes, M. R. Rocha, A. Alves, and N. Ratola, “A review of potentially harmful chemicals in crumb rubber used in synthetic football pitches,” J. Hazard. Mater., vol. 409, p. 124998, May 2021, doi: 10.1016/J.JHAZMAT.2020.124998.
[9] D. Armada et al., “Global evaluation of the chemical hazard of recycled tire crumb rubber employed on worldwide synthetic turf football pitches,” Science of The Total Environment, vol. 812, p. 152542, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2021.152542.
[10] S. B. LaPlaca, C. D. Rice, and P. van den Hurk, “Chronic toxicity of tire crumb rubber particles to mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) in episodic exposures,” Science of The Total Environment, vol. 846, p. 157447, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2022.157447.
[11] J. Le Du-Carrée et al., “Toxicity assessment of leachates from rubber and mineral-based infill materials on marine plankton,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 398, p. 128069, Jun. 2026, doi: 10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2026.128069.
[12] S. Pochron et al., “Exposure to aged crumb rubber reduces survival time during a stress test in earthworms (Eisenia fetida),” Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int., vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 11376–11383, Apr. 2018, doi: 10.1007/S11356-018-1433-4.
[13] N. R. Burson et al., “Crumb Rubber Microplastics Alter Soil Water Dynamics and Plant Biomass Allocation in Soybeans,” May 2026, doi: 10.20944/PREPRINTS202605.1790.V1.
[14] K. Tsiaras et al., “Microplastics in the Mediterranean: Variability From Observations and Model Analysis,” Front. Mar. Sci., vol. 9, p. 784937, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.3389/fmars.2022.784937.
[15] S. Kühn and J. A. van Franeker, “Quantitative overview of marine debris ingested by marine megafauna,” Mar. Pollut. Bull., vol. 151, p. 110858, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2019.110858.
[16] N. K. Y. Susanti, A. Mardiastuti, and Y. Wardiatno, “Microplastics and the Impact of Plastic on Wildlife: A Literature Review,” IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., vol. 528, no. 1, p. 012013, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/528/1/012013.
[17] “New James Hutton Institute Research: Re-Assessment of Environmental Risks from Sewage Sludge – Fidra.” Accessed: Jun. 12, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://fidra.org.uk/download/james-hutton-institute-re-assessment-of-environmental-risks-from-sewage-sludge/
[18] J. Shi, E. Sanganyado, L. Wang, P. Li, X. Li, and W. Liu, “Organic pollutants in sedimentary microplastics from eastern Guangdong: Spatial distribution and source identification,” Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., vol. 193, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1016/J.ECOENV.2020.110356.
[19] H. Andrade, J. Glüge, D. Herzke, N. M. Ashta, S. M. Nayagar, and M. Scheringer, “Oceanic long-range transport of organic additives present in plastic products: an overview,” Environ. Sci. Eur., vol. 33, no. 1, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1186/S12302-021-00522-X.
[20] K. Tanaka, H. Takada, R. Yamashita, K. Mizukawa, M. aki Fukuwaka, and Y. Watanuki, “Accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals in tissues of seabirds ingesting marine plastics,” Mar. Pollut. Bull., vol. 69, no. 1–2, pp. 219–222, Apr. 2013, doi: 10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2012.12.010.
[21] H. Cheng, Y. Hu, and M. Reinhard, “Environmental and health impacts of artificial turf: a review,” Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 2114–2129, Feb. 2014, doi: 10.1021/es4044193.
[22] S. V. L. Leonard et al., “Microplastics in human blood: Polymer types, concentrations and characterisation using μFTIR,” Environ. Int., vol. 188, p. 108751, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108751.
[23] S. Liu et al., “Detection of various microplastics in placentas, meconium, infant feces, breastmilk and infant formula: A pilot prospective study,” Science of The Total Environment, vol. 854, p. 158699, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158699.
[24] Q. Zhao et al., “Detection and characterization of microplastics in the human testis and semen,” Science of The Total Environment, vol. 877, p. 162713, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162713.
[25] L. Montano et al., “First evidence of microplastics in human ovarian follicular fluid: An emerging threat to female fertility,” Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., vol. 291, no. 4, p. 117868, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2025.117868.
[26] J. Zhao, H. Zhang, L. Shi, Y. Jia, and H. Sheng, “Detection and quantification of microplastics in various types of human tumor tissues,” Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., vol. 283, no. 1, p. 116818, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2024.116818.
[27] C. Zhang et al., “Association of mixed exposure to microplastics with sperm dysfunction: a multi-site study in China,” EBioMedicine, vol. 108, p. 105369, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2024.105369.
[28] S. Raghuvir, S. Alex, and D. Clegg, “A review of the impact of micro- and nanoplastics on female reproduction: What we know and gaps in knowledge,” International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, vol. 172, no. 3, pp. 1430–1436, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1002/ijgo.70552.
[29] R. Marfella et al., “Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Atheromas and Cardiovascular Events,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 390, no. 10, pp. 900–910, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1056/nejmoa2309822.
[30] N. Ali, J. Katsouli, E. Auyang, and J. Bernardino de la Serna, “Microplastic and nanoplastic pollution and associated potential disease risks,” Lancet Planet. Health, vol. 9, no. 12, p. 101390, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.lanplh.2025.101390.
[31] J. Xu, J. Qu, H. Jin, and W. Mao, “Associations between microplastics in human feces and colorectal cancer risk,” J. Hazard. Mater., vol. 495, p. 139099, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.139099.
[32] “Plastics and human health: $1.5trn annual cost revealed in new study.” Accessed: Mar. 05, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://instituteofsustainabilitystudies.com/insights/news-analysis/plastics-and-human-health-1-5trn-annual-cost-revealed-in-new-study/
[33] M. Building et al., “Option appraisal for intentionally added microplastics Final report Defra Study team eftec,” 2025. [Online]. Available: http://www.
[34] “Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/2055 – Restriction of microplastics intentionally added to products – Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs.” Accessed: Jun. 12, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/chemicals/reach/restrictions/commission-regulation-eu-20232055-restriction-microplastics-intentionally-added-products_en
[35] W. P. de Haan et al., “The dark side of artificial greening: Plastic turfs as widespread pollutants of aquatic environments,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 334, p. 122094, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122094.
[36] P. Zuccaro et al., “The European Union Ban on Microplastics Includes Artificial Turf Crumb Rubber Infill: Other Nations Should Follow Suit,” Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 2591–2594, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1021/acs.est.4c00047.