Surface Temperature and Heat Stress on Synthetic Grass – Review of Singh et al. (2024)

by | Jul 29, 2026

Executive Summary

Surface heat is one of the most common concerns raised about synthetic turf, and it’s a fair one, anyone who has walked barefoot across a field on a hot afternoon has felt the difference. In 2024, researchers from Southern Cross University, Central Queensland University, and the University of Sydney published the first systematic review to formally examine this question: how does the thermal environment around synthetic grass actually compare to natural grass, and how much does the type of synthetic system matter?

The review, published in the International Journal of Biometeorology, screened the existing peer-reviewed literature under PRISMA guidelines and synthesized what is, and isn’t, established about synthetic turf and heat.

Key Findings

What Was Consistently Higher on Synthetic Grass

  • Surface temperature was consistently higher on synthetic grass than natural grass, with studies reporting differences ranging from 9.4°C to 33.7°C in direct sunlight. This was the most pronounced and consistent finding across the reviewed studies.
  • Air temperature just above the surface was also consistently higher, but by a much smaller margin, 0.5°C to 1.2°C.

What Infill and System Type Changed

  • Systems using styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) infill or a shock pad showed increased surface temperatures.
  • Systems using thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) infill, cool-climate fiber technologies, or HydroChill-type treatments showed measurably lower surface temperatures than standard SBR systems.
  • This is a meaningful finding for field owners: infill and fiber selection is not just a performance and durability decision, it is also a heat management lever.

What Did Not Show a Clear, Consistent Difference

  • Mean radiant temperature, humidity, and wind velocity were similar between synthetic and natural grass across the studies reviewed, or the available data was insufficient to determine whether a real difference exists.
  • The authors’ own conclusion: it remains uncertain whether the measured surface and air temperature differences are large enough to meaningfully increase an individual’s heat stress risk during play. The review found a real physical difference in surface heat — it did not find, and does not claim, a proven increase in athlete heat-related illness risk.

Important Limitations

  • This is a systematic review of existing studies, not new field testing. Its conclusions are only as strong as the underlying studies it screened, which varied in methodology, climate, and measurement approach.
  • Heat stress is a whole-body, whole-environment question. Surface temperature is one input. The review found the broader thermal environment picture (radiant heat, humidity, wind) was largely similar or under-studied, meaning surface temperature alone should not be treated as a proxy for athlete heat risk.
  • Findings on infill/fiber-specific temperature reduction come from a smaller subset of studies than the general turf-vs-grass surface temperature comparison, and product-specific performance should still be verified against independent testing for a given system.
  • The review does not address mitigation strategies (irrigation, cooling infill treatments, scheduling) in depth, that is a separate, practical question for field operators.

Why This Matters

Surface heat is consistently one of the first questions architects, athletic directors, and parents ask about synthetic turf, and it deserves a straight answer rather than either dismissal or alarm. This review confirms the physical reality: synthetic grass surfaces do run measurably hotter than natural grass in direct sun. It also confirms something field owners can act on: not all synthetic systems heat up the same way, and infill/fiber choice is a legitimate design lever for managing it.

What the review does not support is a blanket claim that synthetic turf categorically increases heat-related health risk to athletes, the authors are explicit that this remains an open, unresolved question requiring further research.

Act Global Perspective

Surface heat is a real design consideration, not a talking point to spin in either direction, and we think field owners are better served by a straight account of what’s established and what isn’t. This review reinforces why Act Global treats heat management as part of the system specification conversation for every project, climate, usage pattern, and infill/fiber selection all factor into how a field is designed, not as an afterthought once a field is already installed.

We also think it’s worth being direct about what this research doesn’t settle: whether measured temperature differences translate into meaningfully different heat stress outcomes for athletes is still an open scientific question, and Act Global will continue to track this research as it develops rather than get ahead of what the science currently supports.

Related Resources

Access the Original Study

This review is Act Global’s independent summary of publicly available peer-reviewed research, prepared for educational purposes. Act Global does not host or reproduce the original article. Read the full systematic review directly from the publisher:

This is an Act Global Research Review, an independent interpretation of publicly available peer-reviewed research prepared for educational purposes only. It does not constitute medical, legal, or engineering advice.