Correction: Artificial Turf Versus Natural Grass: A Case Study of Environmental Effects, Health Risks, Safety, and Cost (Sustainability, (2025), 17, 14, (6292), 10.3390/su17146292)

The authors would like to make the following corrections to the published paper [1]. The changes are as follows: Replacing the change in temperature represented by “%” and temperature measurements in “°F” with the measurements in “°C” in all paper text related to temperature units. Replacing the change in temperature represented by “%” and temperature measurements in “°F” with the measurements in “°C” in all paper text related to temperature units. In the abstract, the calculation “182%” was replaced by the calculation “24.1 °C” in the following sentence: The artificial turf field in this case study was 24.1 °C hotter than the natural grass field when measured by an infrared thermometer during mid-day readings in June. In Section 2, Paragraph 5, the words “80–88 °F” were replaced by the words “26.7 to 31.1 °C” in the following sentence: A total of 159 readings were taken using the infrared thermometer and used in analysis. During the times these data were collected across the three days, the air temperatures ranged from 26.7 to 31.1 °C (Weather.com accessed on 5 September 2025). Replacing the paragraph in Section 3.2 with another paragraph. In Section 3.2. Heat Data, this paragraph “Artificial turf temperatures measured using the infrared thermometer were 182% higher than temperatures on the natural grass field and 115% higher using HOBO sensors (see Figure 2). Additionally, temperatures on the artificial turf fields were higher than on the natural grass fields regardless of whether HOBO sensors were used or infrared thermometers. There was also a significant difference between the devices used to collect temperature data, and there was an interaction between the type of field and device used.” was replaced by the following paragraph: Artificial turf temperatures were 24.1 °C higher than temperatures on the natural grass field when measured using the infrared thermometer (see Figure 2). Similarly, though less extreme, temperatures were 6.4 °C higher on the artificial turf field than on the natural grass field when measured using HOBO sensors. There was a significant difference between the devices used to collect temperature data, and this varied by turf type. Temperatures on the artificial turf fields were 5.1 °C higher when measured by infrared thermometers than when HOBO sensors were used. Conversely, temperatures on the natural grass field were 12.6 °C lower when measured by infrared thermometers than when measured by HOBO sensors, thus yielding an interaction between the type of field and device used. Artificial turf temperatures were 24.1 °C higher than temperatures on the natural grass field when measured using the infrared thermometer (see Figure 2). Similarly, though less extreme, temperatures were 6.4 °C higher on the artificial turf field than on the natural grass field when measured using HOBO sensors. There was a significant difference between the devices used to collect temperature data, and this varied by turf type. Temperatures on the artificial turf fields were 5.1 °C higher when measured by infrared thermometers than when HOBO sensors were used. Conversely, temperatures on the natural grass field were 12.6 °C lower when measured by infrared thermometers than when measured by HOBO sensors, thus yielding an interaction between the type of field and device used. The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.