Interestingly, researchers have identified that the survival of bacteria on synthetic turf is largely reliant on the availability of nutrients, rather than simply an absence of an antimicrobial control agent – as reported by Waninger et al (2010) – implicating antimicrobial viability of even non-treated artificial grass systems in applications with reduced traffic and limited exposure to bodily secretions; this delineation is important, as bodily fluids such as mucus act as a source of food for bacteria and slightly increase their rate of survival.For example, a residential front yard with artificial turf appears to present a lesser risk for harboring and producing microorganisms, while a high school football field poses a greater risk. Although, it is worth noting that even if bacteria can survive on turf while in a laboratory where nutrients are provided, it has not yet been proven that this survival could occur when subjected to outdoor elements (Waninger et al., 2010).  Secondarily, bacterial colonization and reproduction are crippled by high surface temperatures and are even more susceptible to degeneration when only briefly exposed to UV light (Hardjawinata et al., 2005). During an experiment conducted by McNitt et al (2020) – where bacterial samples were introduced to both natural and synthetic grass, then measured – bacteria could be detected on both synthetic and natural grass samples under suboptimal growing conditions, but the bacterial survival rate rapidly decreased following slight increases in temperature and UV exposure.Additionally, and anecdotally – as it was not intended to be a part McNitt’s study, a natural sod sample was measured as having higher counts of bacteria than the non-treated artificial turf sample. Researchers surmised this was possible because: 1) natural sod does not reach the same levels of surface temperature comparative to synthetic turf, 2) natural sod’s density may provide greater coverage from UV light, and 3) there is greater nutrient availability in natural sod.