Skip to main content
NCBI home page
HHS Author Manuscripts logoLink to HHS Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: Tob Regul Sci. 2021 Jan;7(1):17–30. doi: 10.18001/TRS.7.1.2

No Butts on the Beach: Aquatic Toxicity of Cigarette Butt Leachate Chemicals

P Dilip Venugopal 1, Shannon K Hanna 1, Gregory G Gagliano 1, Hoshing W Chang 1
PMCID: PMC7849351  NIHMSID: NIHMS1664599  PMID: 33532516

Abstract

Objectives:

Toxic pollutants leaching from littered cigarette butts (CB) raise environmental impact concerns. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is required to assess the environmental impacts of its tobacco regulatory actions per the US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Methods:

We determined the chemical constituents in CB leachate through analyses of 109 field-collected CB and literature compilation and characterized their ecotoxicity to aquatic organisms.

Results:

One-third of the 98 identified CB leachate chemicals were very toxic and 10% were toxic to aquatic organisms due to acute and chronic toxicity. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, metals, phthalates, nicotine and volatile organic compounds were the most hazardous CB leachate chemicals for aquatic organisms. Of the 98 CB leachate chemicals, 25 are included in FDA’s list of harmful or potentially harmful constituents in tobacco products and tobacco smoke.

Conclusions:

Our study quantifies CB leachate constituents, characterizes their ecological hazard and identifies chemicals of concern. Thus, it aids in evaluating the environmental impacts of tobacco products per NEPA requirements. These results provide important information for strategies to prevent and reduce CB litter (eg, awareness programs, litter laws enforcement), thereby reducing environmental hazards from CB toxicants.

Keywords: tobacco regulation, National Environmental Policy Act, cigarette butts, ecotoxicology, ecological risk assessment, environmental impacts

Smoked cigarette butts (CB) or cigarette filters are among the most commonly littered items with 6.3 trillion cigarettes consumed worldwide.1,2 Littered CB do not easily biodegrade and may take up to 14 years to disappear,3 accumulating as one of the most common wastes in the world.4 Tobacco product waste, including littered CB, contains toxic chemicals that are released into the environment.5 Cigarette tobacco and cigarette products contain over 7000 chemicals including some that are toxins and carcinogens. Whereas the number of chemicals in the littered CB is unknown, analytical studies have documented many hazardous constituents from diverse chemical classes in the CB.6–8 Hence, CB pose a major litter and hazardous waste problem8,9 that raises concerns about their potential environmental, public health, social and economic impacts.5,6,9–11

The US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires US federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of their proposed actions. In accordance with NEPA, and rules per 21 C.F.R. § 25,12 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluates the environmental impacts of its tobacco regulatory actions. This includes impacts pertaining to use and disposal of FDA-regulated tobacco products. Understanding the environmental impacts of CB waste is an important aspect of this environmental assessment of the disposal portion of the cigarette lifecycle.

Environmental impacts from CB litter could occur due to the leaching of toxic chemicals, and aquatic systems and organisms may be the most vulnerable to these potential impacts.8,13 The toxicity of discarded CB leachate to aquatic organisms has received increased attention lately, with multiple studies demonstrating acute and chronic toxicity to organisms across trophic levels.4,10,14–26 Although studies targeting specific aquatic organisms help us understand the toxicity of CB in general, a limitation is that the specific chemical constituents associated with the observed ecotoxicity are not identified. Some of these studies allude to chemicals such as pesticides in the CB leachate as probable causes for the observed acute and chronic toxicity to aquatic organisms.4,14 However, as these studies use the CB leachate solution in the bioassays, the specific chemicals associated with the observed ecotoxicological endpoints are unknown. Studies identifying specific chemical components in CB leachate vis-à-vis their aquatic toxicity are limited to nicotine.10,24,25,27 The only available, preliminary environmental risk assessment for nicotine in CB showed a risk for population effects on aquatic organisms.25 Therefore, the ecological risks to aquatic organisms from the specific chemical constituents of CB leachate and their broader environmental effects remain poorly understood.4,14,16,27

Additionally, sensitivity of species to CB leachate chemicals greatly vary.4,17 Hence, analysis of ecotoxicity to multiple species through a probabilistic risk assessment paradigm using species sensitivity distributions (SSD) enable calculating the concentration at which a specified proportion of species may be affected.28,29 Hazardous concentration (HC) values for chronic and acute toxicity derived from SSDs are used by European and US regulatory agencies (eg, European Union, US Environmental Protection Agency) for environmental protection, assessment and management of aquatic ecosystems.29 However, HC values for the specific chemicals or mixtures present in CB leachate for acute and chronic toxicity to aquatic organisms are not readily available.

In this study we: (1) characterized and quantified the chemical composition of leachate from discarded CB; (2) compiled CB and filter leachate constituent chemicals from the literature; and (3) characterized the ecological hazard for acute and chronic toxicity to aquatic organisms posed by the specific identified chemicals by compiling (1) environmental hazard categorization per the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), and (2) HC values generated through SSDs from the literature.

METHODS

Chemicals in Cigarette Butt Leachate

Cigarette butt collection and leaching methods.

Newly discarded CB were collected in 3 convenient locations in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in November 2016. Designated smoking areas were cleaned of general debris and previously discarded CB, and clean receptacles were placed outside 2 office buildings and one fast food restaurant in the morning. After 4 hours, 109 newly discarded cigarette butts were collected from the receptacles in these areas and placed into pre-cleaned glass vials with lids. Samples were stored at 4°C and transported overnight to the analytical laboratory.

Leaching and leachate analysis was performed by Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories Environmental (Lancaster, PA). Thirty CB were analyzed for volatile fraction chemical constituents and 79 were used to generate test results for the remaining targeted chemical constituents. For non-volatile chemical analysis, leachate was obtained by shake extraction. Cigarette butts were weighed and loaded into Teflon extraction vessels. Deionized water was added in a ratio of 20:1, water volume to number of cigarette butts, and tumbled end over end for 18 hours at 30 revolutions per minute. The leachate was then filtered through a 45 μm membrane filter. For volatile chemical analysis, leachate was prepared as above; however, the vessel was sealed and pressurized to avoid atmospheric exposure. Similarly, the leachate was filtered in a zero-headspace vessel to avoid atmospheric exposure. The filtered leachate was transferred to 40 ml amber glass vials with Teflon lined septa to ensure gas tight storage.

Cigarette butt leachate analysis.

Constituents were analyzed using standardized U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Hazardous Waste Test Methods (SW-846) (Supplementary Information Table S1).30 We selected this compendium as it represents EPA’s official collection of methods for use in complying with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act which governs the disposal of both hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste in the US. The specific analytical methods chosen, among the collection of methods in SW-846, broadly targeted chemicals included in FDA’s list of harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) in tobacco products and tobacco smoke.31

Method 8260 is used to determine and quantify volatile organic compounds in a variety of matrices (Supplementary Table S1). Method 8270 is used to determine the concentration of semi-volatile organic compounds in extracts from various matrices and can be used to quantitate most organic compounds that are soluble in methylene chloride and capable of being eluted. Method 8315 is used to measure free carbonyl compounds in various matrices by derivatization with 2,4-dintrophenylhydrazine using high performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet/visible detection. Method 8015 is used to determine the concentration of nonhalogenated volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds by gas chromatography. Method 6010 is used to determine multiple trace elements, especially metals, in solution using inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry. Method 7470 is a cold-vapor atomic absorption measurement used to determine the concentration of mercury in extracts. In this method, mercury is reduced to its elemental state and aerated from solution in a closed system. The vapor passes through a cell positioned in the light path of an atomic absorption spectrophotometer and the absorbance is measured as a function of mercury concentration.

Analyses were performed in triplicate on a single leachate by Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories Environmental. Estimated values of concentration for the chemicals were all greater than or equal to the Limit of Detection of the analytical methods. Some constituents were measured using these methods even though the method is not prescribed for that specific constituent (Supplementary Table S1). For these constituents, a method was chosen based on chemical classification of the constituent and standards were used to validate the method for that specific chemical. Method validation included method detection limit studies for each compound to establish achievable sensitivity, and initial demonstration of capability studies to establish achievable precision and accuracy. From the triplicate samples, we calculated mean quantity of each chemical (μg/L) in the leachate as well as mean quantity per CB (μg/CB, and mg/kg CB).

Additionally, we also compiled chemical constituents in CB and cigarette filters previously reported6–8 based on analysis through water and extract solution.

Aquatic Toxicity of Cigarette Butt Leachate Chemicals

We characterized the ecological hazard posed by CB leachate chemicals through 2 complementary and internationally recognized methods namely Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) classification, and HC values. For the overall list of chemical constituents identified we first compiled the environmental hazard categorization for acute and chronic aquatic toxicity per the GHS assessments.32,33 For acute hazard classification, chemicals were identified as very toxic to aquatic life – GHS code H400, toxic to aquatic life H401, or harmful to aquatic life H402.33 Similarly, for chronic hazard classification, chemicals were identified as very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects H410, toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects H411 or harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects H412.33 Chemicals without GHS classification were grouped under ‘not available.’ It is noted that the ‘not available’ category included chemicals with insufficient ecotoxicity data for GHS classification as well as those whose toxicity is considered as insufficient to warrant classification (lethal concentration LC50 or effective concentration EC50 > 100 mg/l).33

We then collated the HC values (HC50; hazardous concentration value at which 50% of species may be affected) for acute and chronic aquatic toxicity for each of the chemicals, as provided by Posthuma et al.29 They estimated the HC50 values for acute toxicity from log-normal SSD models based on log-transformed acute median effective concentration data (eg, LC50 and EC50) for multiple species and taxonomic groups. For chronic toxicity, HC50 values were estimated from log-normal SSD models based on log-transformed chronic no‐effect (eg, no‐observed‐effect concentration NOEC) or negligible-effect (EC5, EC10]) data for multiple species and taxonomic groups.29

In addition to the ecological hazard characterization, we also identified the chemicals in FDA’s established list of HPHCs,31 and among additions to the list proposed by FDA.34 Graphs were generated with packages ‘ggplot2’ v3.3.035 and ‘ggrepel’ v0.8.136 in R program v3.4.3.37

RESULTS

Cigarette Butt Leachate Analysis Results

We identified 34 chemicals in CB leachate through our chemical analysis, including heavy metals, volatile organic compounds (VOC), aldehydes, and glycols (Table 1). Additionally, 9 other compounds were measured but not identified (Supplementary Information Table S2). Glycerol, propylene glycol, and nicotine constituted the largest concentration measured in the leachate (Table 1).

Table 1.

Cigarette Butt Leachate Chemical Constituents and Concentrations in Fresh Cigarette Butt Leachate

Serial Number Chemical CAS# Source reference Mean leachate concentration
μg / L (SD) μg / cigarette butt mg / kg
1 1,2,3,6-Tetrahydro-2,3’-bipyridine 2743-90-0 This study 390 (26) 7.4 22
2 1,3-Dinitronaphthalene 606-37-1 43
3 1,5-Dihydroxy- Anthraquinon 117-12-4 44
4 2-(Pyridin-3-yl) Pyrrolidine-1- Carbaldehyde 3000-81-5 45
5 2,2-Dimethyl-2,3- Dihydrobenzofuran-7-ol 1563-38-8 44
6 2,3’-Dipyridyl 581-50-0 This study 260 (21) 4.9 14
7 2,4-dimethyl-Phenol 105-67-9 This study 120 (6) 2.3 6.7
8 2-Butanone 78-93-3 46
9 2-Cyclohexen-1-one,4-(3-hydroxy-1-butenyl)-3,5,5-trimethyl 34318-21-3 This study 220 (21) 4.2 12
10 2-Cyclopenten-1-one 930-30-3 This study 310 (87) 5.9 17
11 2-Cyclopenten-1-one, 2 hydroxy-3 methyl 80-71-7 This study 380 (15) 7.2 21
12 2-Cyclopenten-1-one, 3-ethyl- 5682-69-9 This study 420 (31) 8.0 23
13 2-Cyclopenten-1-one, 2 methyl 1120-73-6 This study 410 (80) 7.8 23
14 2-Cyclopenten-1-one, 3 methyl 2758-18-1 This study 520 (71) 9.9 29
15 2-Furanmethanolb 98-00-0 This study 580 (105) 11 32
16 2-Methylindole 95-20-5 47
17 4,8,13-Cyclotetradecatriene-1,3-diol, 1,5,9-trimethyl-12-(1- methylethyl)- 7220-78-2 This study 370 (32) 7.0 21
18 5-(4,6-Dichloropyridin-3-yl)-Pyridine-1(2H)- Carboxamide 44
19 5-(4-Hydroxy Pyridin-3-yl)-Pyridine-1(2H)- Carboxamide 45
20 6-(2,6-Dichlorophenoxy) Pyrimidine-2,4-Diamine 44
21 7-Carbaldehyde camptothecin 80758-83-4 45
22 7-Keto-Benzo(a)pyrene 45
23 9-Nitroanthracene 602-60-8 43
24 Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 6
25 Acetaldehydea 75-07-0 46 / This study 130 (33.6) 2.5 7.2
26 Acetonea 67-64-1 46
27 Acroleina 107-02-8 46
28 Aluminum (Al) 7429-90-5 38,48
29 Anthracene 120-12-7 6,49,50
30 Antimony (Sb) 7440-36-0 51
31 Arsenic (As)a 7440-38-2 38,50–53
32 Barium (Ba)a 7440-39-3 48
33 Benz[a]anthracenea 56-55-3 6,49,50
34 Benzaldehyde 100-52-7 This study 29 (1.5) 0.55 1.6
35 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 191-24-2 6
36 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 6
37 Benzo[a]pyrenea 50-32-8 6,44,49,50,54,55
38 Benzo[b]fluoranthenea 205-99-2 49,50,52
39 Benzyl alcohol 100-51-6 This study 800 (120) 15 45
40 Beta-Carotene-4,4’-Dione 472-61-7 44
41 Butyraldehyde 123-72-8 46 / This study 35 (2.1) 0.66 2.0
42 Cadmium (Cd)a 7440-43-9 38,48,50–52,56,57
43 Catechola 120-80-9 58
44 Chlorantraniliprole 500008-45-7 59
45 Chromium (Cr)a 7440-47-3 38,48,50,60 / This study 2.76 (0.4) 0.05 0.16
46 Chrysene 218-01-9 6,50
47 Cobalt (Co)a 7440-48-4 38,51
48 Copper (Cu) 7440-50-8 38,48,50,52,57
49 Cotinine 486-56-6 45
50 Crotonaldehydea 4170-30-3 46 / This study 23 (0) 0.44 1.3
51 Cyclohexane, 1-methyl-4-(1- methylethenyl) 1124-25-0 This study 3,000 (208) 50 180
52 Cyclohexene, 4-methyl-1-(1-methylethyl) 500-00-5 This study 62 (2.1) 1.0 3.8
53 Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 117-81-7 61
54 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 6,50
55 Dibutyl phthalate 84-74-2 61
56 Diethyl phthalate 84-66-2 47
57 Diisobutyl phthalate 84-69-5 61
58 d-Menthol 15356-60-2 This study 7,600 (1793) 140 420
59 Ethylene glycolb 107-21-1 This study 7,700 (305.5) 150 430
60 Fluoranthene 206-44-0 6,49
61 Fluorene 86-73-7 6
62 Formaldehydea 50-00-0 46 / This study 310 (20.8) 5.9 17
63 Glycerolb 56-81-5 This study 270,000 (28,867.5) 5,100 15,000
64 Hexaconazole 56-81-5 44
65 Hydroquinone 79983-71-4 58
66 Imidacloprid 123-31-9 62
67 Imidocarb 138261-41-3 44
68 Indeno[1,2,3-cd] pyrene 27885-92-3 6
69 Iron (Fe) 7439-89-6 38,48,52,60
70 Lead (Pb)a 7439-92-1 38,48,50,56,63,64 / This study
71 Maleic Hydrazide 123-33-1 65
72 Manganese (Mn) 7439-96-5 38,48,52,57
73 m-cresola 108-39-4 58
74 Mercury (Hg)a 7439-97-6 53,63
75 Naphthalene 91-20-3 6 / This study 3 (0) 0.06 0.17
76 Nickel (Ni)a 7440-02-0 48
77 Nicotinea 54-11-5 10,44,45,50 / This study 59,000 (2,081.7) 1,100 3,300
78 Nitrobenzenea 98-95-3 43
79 N-Nitrosonornicotine (NNN)a 16543-55-8 44,45
80 o-cresola 95-48-7 58 / This study 140 (15.3) 2.7 7.8
81 p-cresola 106-44-5 58 / This study 350 (32.2) 607 20
82 Phenanthrene 85-01-8 6,50
83 Phenola 108-95-2 58 / This study 920 (20) 17 51
84 Propionaldehydea 123-38-6 46
85 Propylene glycolb 57-55-6 This study 120,000 (5,773.5) 2,300 6,700
86 Pyrene 129-00-0 6,49,50
87 Pyridine, 3-(3,4-dihydro-2H-pyrrol-5-yl) 532-12-7 This study 230 (12) 4.4 13
88 Resorcinol 108-46-3 58
89 Rishitin 18178-54-6 This study 170 (46) 3.2 9.5
90 Rutin 153-18-4 44,45
91 Scopoletin 92-61-5 This study 370 (26) 7.0 21
92 Solanesol 13190-97-1 66–68
93 Strontium (Sr) 7440-24-6 48
94 Sulfadoxine 2447-57-6 44
95 Titanium (Ti) 7440-32-6 48
96 Triethyl phosphate 78-40-0 This study 220 (6) 4.2 12
97 Xanthophyll 127-40-2 44
98 Zinc (Zn) 7440-66-6 38,48,51,52,57,60
Open in a new tab

Note.

Chemicals in bold were newly identified by this study.

a

Chemicals currently on the US Food and Drug Administration’s Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents in Tobacco Products and Tobacco Smoke: Established List.https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/04/03/2012-7727/harmful-and-potentially-harmful-constituents-in-tobacco-products-and-tobacco-smoke-established-list

b

Chemicals on the list of proposed additions to US States Food and Drug Administration’s Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents in Tobacco Products and Tobacco Smoke.https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/08/05/2019-16658/harmful-and-potentially-harmful-constituents-in-tobacco-products-established-list-proposed-additions

Cigarette Butt Leachate Constituents from the Literature

An additional 64 chemicals were reported in the literature on CB leachate (Table 1), constituting a total of 98 chemicals. Of the 34 chemicals measured in our study, 23 represent new records for CB leachate and were previously unreported in the literature. Overall, 25 of the 98 chemicals are currently included in FDA’s established list of HPHCs in tobacco products and tobacco smoke, and other 4 chemicals among additions to HPHCs proposed by FDA (Table 1).

Aquatic Toxicity of Cigarette Butt Leachate Chemicals

About one-third of the 98 chemicals identified in our chemical analyses and literature were classified as very toxic and 10% as toxic for acute and chronic aquatic toxicity per GHS classification (Figure 1). For about half of the 98 chemicals, including some metals, GHS classification was not available.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) Categorization for Aquatic Toxicity of Cigarette Butt Leachate Chemicals

HC50 values based on SSDs for acute and chronic aquatic toxicity were available for 68 and 67 chemicals respectively (Figure 2). The remaining chemicals, about one-third of total list, have little to no ecotoxicity information.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Aquatic Toxicity of Cigarette Butt Leachate Chemicals

Note.

Two separate measures of aquatic toxicity are depicted – the hazardous concentration values (HC50; concentration affecting 50% of the species) for acute and chronic aquatic toxicity (see methods), and the acute aquatic toxicity categorization per the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). Low HC50 values indicate high aquatic toxicity hazard.

Along with nicotine, metals (lead and chromium), naphthalene and VOC such as limonene represent the most hazardous chemicals recorded in our chemical analysis. For the overall list of chemicals, GHS classification and HC50 values together identify polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals, phthalates, nicotine and VOC as the most hazardous (Figure 2).

DISCUSSION

The ubiquity, longevity, and toxicity of CB raises concerns about the potential environmental and economic impacts of CB litter.5,6,9,11 Several studies have experimentally determined the toxicity of CB leachate solution to aquatic organisms. They focused on the CB in its entirety by measuring a toxicological endpoint for one or more species exposed to CB leachate solution.4,14,16–18,20,22,26 Whereas these studies demonstrate ecotoxicity of CB leachate broadly, they do not identify the specific toxic chemical components.

We identified and quantified the chemical composition of leachate from discarded CB, added new information to the list of chemicals that are known to leach from CB, and characterized the ecological hazard posed by the chemicals for organisms across trophic levels using GHS classification and HC50 values. The presence of nicotine, toxic metals, PAHs such as naphthalene, phthalates, and VOC raise potential environmental impact concerns, given their high toxicity and hazard potential in relation to the concentrations found in CB leachate. Previous studies posit pesticides, nicotine, and ethylphenol as potential chemicals contributing to CB leachate toxicity.4,10,14,21,25 Our results indicate that PAHs, phthalates and metals may pose greater hazard given their toxicity and bioaccumulation potential.6,19 The presence of metals and PAHs, along with nicotine, also may help explain the higher reported toxicity of combusted CB than non-combusted filter to aquatic organisms.14,16,18 For instance, the adsorption of heavy metals onto nanoparticles from smoked CB leachate may result in increased environmental impacts on aquatic organisms due to toxic metals in CB litter.8,38

The varied class of chemicals that our results document and their broad mode of action for ecotoxicity reiterates the importance of identifying the chemical constituents in CB,27 and for understanding the ecotoxicity for varied taxa to address the environmental impacts of CB. Our study’s focus was broad in the classes of constituents examined and thereby identified 23 unique chemicals previously unreported in CB leachate. Cigarette tobacco and smoke contains more than 7000 chemicals,5 and only a minor fraction of these are reported in literature on CB as our results show. This highlights the need for non-targeted chemical analyses that more broadly detect the wide spectrum of chemicals in CB waste. Furthermore, one-third of around 100 chemicals in CB we report here have little to no ecotoxicity information documented in the literature. Therefore, research efforts are needed to predict the ecotoxicity of these chemicals utilizing their structure and activity.39

Despite the increasing research efforts and knowledge on the chemical constituents of CB and their toxicity, assessment of the risks posed by cigarette waste for aquatic environments remains a worthy research effort.14 The range of cigarette brands and tobacco blends, extent of combustion, areas of littering, environmental conditions, the varied and complex pathways of cigarette waste to aquatic systems10,14 all affect the environmental impacts of CB waste. In this study, we sampled CB in limited environmental conditions for littering and the collected CB minimally represented the overall cigarette marketplace. Also, we did not control for brands and mentholated versus non-mentholated CB. These factors may affect the CB leachate chemicals identified and their concentrations. Additionally, our chemical analysis results included unidentified constituents, and our hazard characterization comprised many chemicals without ecotoxicity information. Despite these limitations, our study represents a robust effort to quantify the chemical constitutes of CB leachate and their hazard characteristics.

IMPLICATIONS FOR TOBACCO REGULATION

Overall, our study helps characterize the ecological hazard posed by CB leachate, identify chemicals of concern for further study, and identify where more information can help to improve our understanding of the potential and risks for ecotoxicity. Thereby, our study furthers the evaluation of the environmental impacts of tobacco products for NEPA purposes as part of the tobacco regulatory process. The finding that 30% of the reported CB leachate chemicals are in FDA’s established HPHCs list or proposed additions highlights the importance of research to learn more about the potential for impact on human health. The HPHCs we measured that leach from CBs include PAHs, metals, nicotine, and volatile organic compounds which are also very toxic to aquatic organisms. These results provide support for strategies to prevent and reduce CB litter (eg, awareness and education programs, litter laws enforcement, receptacle provision),9,27,40,41 thereby reducing environmental hazard potential from the toxicants in the CB leachate. However, to characterize the ecological risk of these chemicals, exposure profiles derived from modeling the environmental fate and transport are needed along with the hazard characterization we provide here.

To characterize and quantify the ecological risks more thoroughly, concerted research efforts can identify the chemical constituents of CB leachate and their concentration, species sensitive to those identified chemicals, the exposure profile given the fate and transport of those compounds in different environments, and the hazard characterization and bioaccumulation potential21,42 of those compounds to different organisms. Such information will help support risk assessment for aquatic organisms potentially impacted from exposure to chemicals that leach from CB as part of the environmental impact assessments for NEPA requirements of the tobacco regulatory process.

Supplementary Material

1

Acknowledgement

This research was funded by US Food and Drug Administration contract HHSF223201610575P. The funder was not involved in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Food and Drug Administration.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement

The authors do not have any potential conflict of interests or competing interests to declare.

References

  • 1.Novotny TE, Bialous SA, Burt L, et al. The environmental and health impacts of tobacco agriculture, cigarette manufacture and consumption. Bull World Health Organ. 2015;93(12):877–880. doi: 10.2471/BLT.15.152744 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Wallbank LA, MacKenzie R, Beggs PJ. Environmental impacts of tobacco product waste: international and Australian policy responses. Ambio. 2017;46(3):361–370. doi: 10.1007/s13280-016-0851-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Joly F-X, Coulis M. Comparison of cellulose vs. plastic cigarette filter decomposition under distinct disposal environments. Waste Manag. 2018;72:349–353. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.11.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Micevska T, Warne MStJ, Pablo F, Patra R. Variation in, and causes of, toxicity of cigarette butts to a Cladoceran and Microtox. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2006;50(2):205–212. doi: 10.1007/s00244-004-0132-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.World Health Organization. Tobacco and Its Environmental Impact: An Overview. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2017:72 https://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/environmental-impact-overview/en/ Published 2017 Accessed May 18, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Dobaradaran S, Schmidt TC, Lorenzo-Parodi N, et al. Cigarette butts: an overlooked source of PAHs in the environment? Environ Pollut. 2019;249:932–939. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.03.097 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Poppendieck D, Khurshid S, Emmerich S. Measuring Airborne Emissions from Cigarette Butts: Literature Review and Experimental Plan. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2016. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2016/NIST.IR.8147.pdf. Published October 2016. Accessed December 18, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Torkashvand J, Farzadkia M, Sobhi HR, Esrafili A. Littered cigarette butt as a well-known hazardous waste: a comprehensive systematic review. J Hazard Mater. 2020;383:121242. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121242 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Novotny TE, Lum K, Smith E, et al. Cigarettes butts and the case for an environmental policy on hazardous cigarette waste. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009;6(5):1691–1705. doi: 10.3390/ijerph6051691 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Roder Green AL, Putschew A, Nehls T. Littered cigarette butts as a source of nicotine in urban waters. J Hydrol. 2014;519:3466–3474. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.05.046 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Schneider JE, Scheibling CM, Peterson NA, et al. Online simulation model to estimate the total costs of tobacco product waste in large U.S. cities. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(13):4705. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17134705 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Environmental impact considerations. 21 C.F.R. § 25. 2019. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=5faa2658d341e5303e9ad13e58b264e4&mc=true&node=pt21.1.25&rgn=div5. Published 2019. Accessed December 18, 2020.
  • 13.Araújo MCB, Costa MF. A critical review of the issue of cigarette butt pollution in coastal environments. Environ Res. 2019;172:137–149. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2019.02.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Slaughter E, Gersberg RM, Watanabe K, et al. Toxicity of cigarette butts, and their chemical components, to marine and freshwater fish. Tob Control. 2011;20(Suppl 1):i25–i29. doi: 10.1136/tc.2010.040170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Baran W, Madej-Knysak D, Sobczak A, Adamek E. The influence of waste from electronic cigarettes, conventional cigarettes and heat-not-burn tobacco products on microorganisms. J Hazard Mater. 2020;385:121591. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121591 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lee W, Lee CC. Developmental toxicity of cigarette butts – an underdeveloped issue. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2015;113:362–368. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2014.12.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Booth DJ, Gribben P, Parkinson K. Impact of cigarette butt leachate on tidepool snails. Mar Pollut Bull. 2015;95(1):362–364. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.04.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lawal MS, Ologundudu SO. Toxicity of cigarette filter leachates on Hymenochirus curtipes and Clarias gariepinus in Nigeria. J Environ Ext. 2013;11:7–14. doi: 10.4314/jext.v11i1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Montalvão MF, Chagas TQ, Gabriela da Silva Alvarez T, et al. Cigarette butt leachate as a risk factor to the health of freshwater bivalve. Chemosphere. 2019;234:379–387. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.06.100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Parker TT, Rayburn J. A comparison of electronic and traditional cigarette butt leachate on the development of Xenopus laevis embryos. Toxicol Rep. 2017;4:77–82. doi: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2017.01.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wright SL, Rowe D, Reid MJ, et al. Bioaccumulation and biological effects of cigarette litter in marine worms. Sci Rep. 2015;5(1):1–10. doi: 10.1038/srep14119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Dieng H, Rajasaygar S, Ahmad AH, et al. Indirect effects of cigarette butt waste on the dengue vector Aedes ae gypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Acta Trop. 2014;130:123–130. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2013.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Register K Cigarette butts as litter-toxic as well as ugly. Underwater Naturalist. 2000;25(2):23–29. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rawls SM, Patil T, Tallarida CS, et al. Nicotine behavioral pharmacology: clues from planarians. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011;118(2):274–279. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.04.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Oropesa AL, Floro AM, Palma P. Toxic potential of the emerging contaminant nicotine to the aquatic ecosystem. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2017;24(20):16605–16616. doi: 10.1007/s11356-017-9084-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Green DS, Kregting L, Boots B. Smoked cigarette butt leachate impacts survival and behaviour of freshwater invertebrates. Environ Pollut. 2020;266:115286. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115286 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Healton CG, Cummings KM, O’Connor RJ, Novotny TE. Butt really? The environmental impact of cigarettes. Tob Control. 2011;20(Suppl 1):i1. doi: 10.1136/tc.2011.043729 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Belanger S, Barron M, Craig P, et al. Future needs and recommendations in the development of species sensitivity distributions: estimating toxicity thresholds for aquatic ecological communities and assessing impacts of chemical exposures. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2017;13(4):664–674. doi: 10.1002/ieam.1841 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Posthuma L, Gils J van, Zijp MC, et al. Species sensitivity distributions for use in environmental protection, assessment, and management of aquatic ecosystems for 12 386 chemicals. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2019;38(4):905–917. doi: 10.1002/etc.4373 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.US Environmental Protection Agency. The SW-846 Compendium Hazardous Waste Test Methods. US EPA: https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846/sw-846-compendium. Published October 8, 2015. Accessed April 2, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.US Food and Drug Administration. Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents in Tobacco Products and Tobacco Smoke; Established List. 77 FR 20034. 2012. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/04/03/2012-7727/harmful-and-potentially-harmful-constituents-in-tobacco-products-and-tobacco-smoke-established-list. Published April 3, 2012. Accessed April 22, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). eChemPortal OECD. Classification search. https://www.echemportal.org/echemportal/ghs-search. Published 2020. Accessed March 20, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.United Nations. Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations; 2019:570 https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs_rev08/ST-SG-AC10-30-Rev8e.pdf. Published 2019. Accessed April 27, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.US Food and Drug Administration. Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents in Tobacco Products; Established List; Proposed Additions; Request for Comments. 84 FR 38032. 2019. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/08/05/2019-16658/harmful-and-potentially-harmful-constituents-in-tobacco-products-established-list-proposed-additions. Published August 5, 2019. Accessed April 24, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Wickham H Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Slowikowski K, Schep A, Hughes S, et al. Ggrepel: Automatically Position Non-Overlapping Text Labels with “Ggplot2.” 2020. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggrepel. Accessed March 30, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Chevalier Q, El Hadri H, Petitjean P, et al. Nano-litter from cigarette butts: environmental implications and urgent consideration. Chemosphere. 2018;194:125–130. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.11.158 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Blum DJ, Speece R. Determining chemical toxicity to aquatic species. Environ Sci Technol. 1990;24(3):284–293. doi: 10.1021/es00073a002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lee JGL, Ranney LM, Goldstein AO. Cigarette butts near building entrances: what is the impact of smoke-free college campus policies? Tob Control. 2013;22(2):107–112. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050152 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Johns M, Coady MH, Chan CA, et al. Evaluating New York City’s smoke-free parks and beaches law: a critical multiplist approach to assessing behavioral impact. Am J Community Psychol. 2013;51(1–2):254–263. doi: 10.1007/s10464-012-9519-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Wei H-H. Determination of organic compounds in smoked cigarette leachate and the bioaccumulation potentials in the marine mussel, Mytilus galloprovincialis [Master’s Thesis]. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University; 2018. https://digitallibrary.sdsu.edu/islandora/object/sdsu%3A22658. Accessed August 18, 2020 [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Gong M, Khurshid S, Poppendieck D. What’s in a butt? Environmental contamination from airborne cigarette butt emissions. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. 2017;13(3):549–551. doi: 10.1002/ieam.1892 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Zhao J, Zhang N, Qu C, et al. Comparison of the corrosion inhibitive effect of anaerobic and aerobic cigarette butts water extracts on N80 steel at 90 °C in hydrochloric acid solution. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2010;49(24):12452–12460. doi: 10.1021/ie1011454 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Zhao J, Zhang N, Qu C, et al. Cigarette butts and their application in corrosion inhibition for n80 steel at 90 °c in a hydrochloric acid solution. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2010;49(8):3986–3991. doi: 10.1021/ie100168s [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Yu J, Wang S, Wang B, et al. Determination of eight volatile carbonyl compounds in cigarette filter by LC-ESIMS/MS. Tob Sci Technol. 2013;9:39–46. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Xu EG, Richardot WH, Li S, et al. Assessing toxicity and in vitro bioactivity of smoked cigarette leachate using cell-based assays and chemical analysis. Chem Res Toxicol. 2019;32(8):1670–1679. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.9b00201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Moerman JW, Potts GE. Analysis of metals leached from smoked cigarette litter. Tob Control. 2011;20(Suppl 1):i30–i35. doi: 10.1136/tc.2010.040196 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Demirci A Factorial design optimization of solid-phase microextraction for high-performance liquid chromatography−ultraviolet spectrometry analysis of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in cigarette filter tar. Polycycl Aromat Compd. 2014;34(2):115–134. doi: 10.1080/10406638.2013.857358 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Moriwaki H, Kitajima S, Katahira K. Waste on the roadside, ‘poi-sute’ waste: its distribution and elution potential of pollutants into environment. Waste Manag. 2009;29(3):1192–1197. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2008.08.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Wu D, Landsberger S, Larson SM. Determination of the elemental distribution in cigarette components and smoke by instrumental neutron activation analysis. J Radioanal Nucl Chem. 1997;217(1):77–82. doi: 10.1007/BF02055352 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Dobaradaran S, Nabipour I, Saeedi R, et al. Association of metals (Cd, Fe, As, Ni, Cu, Zn and Mn) with cigarette butts in northern part of the Persian Gulf. Tob Control. 2017;26(4):461–463. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-052931 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Wang Y, Yao X-Y, Li D, et al. Determination of Hg and As in cigarette filter components with hydride generation-atomic fluorescence spectrometry. Tob Sci Technol. 2007;9:41–45. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Ding YS, Ward J, Hammond D, Watson CH. Mouth-level intake of benzo[a]pyrene from reduced nicotine cigarettes. Int J Env Res Public Health. 2014;11(11):11898–11914. doi: 10.3390/ijerph111111898 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Zhang X, Hou H, Shi L, et al. Novel method to analysis benzo[a]pyrene in filter by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry: application to assess mouth level benzo[a]pyrene exposure. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2014;28(13):1468–1472. doi: 10.1002/rcm.6921 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Galażyn-Sidorczuk M, Brzóska MM, Moniuszko-Jakoniuk J. Estimation of Polish cigarettes contamination with cadmium and lead, and exposure to these metals via smoking. Environ Monit Assess. 2008;137(1):481–493. doi: 10.1007/s10661-007-9783-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Pelit FO, Demirdöğen RE, Henden E. Investigation of heavy metal content of Turkish tobacco leaves, cigarette butt, ash, and smoke. Environ Monit Assess. 2013;185(11):9471–9479. doi: 10.1007/s10661-013-3266-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Hu N, Du W, Dai Y. Determination of major phenolic compounds retained by cigarette filter with high performance liquid chromatography. Tob Sci Technol. 2015;48(4):49–55. doi: 10.16135/j.issn1002-0861.20150410 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Gaddamidi V, Zimmerman WT, Ponte M, Ruzo L. Pyrolysis of [14C]-Chlorantraniliprole in Tobacco. J Agric Food Chem. 2011;59(17):9424–9432. doi: 10.1021/jf201995b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Wang W, Finlayson-Pitts BJ. Measurement of trace metals in tobacco and cigarette ash by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy. J Chem Educ. 2003;80(1):83. doi: 10.1021/ed080p83 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Zhang H, Liu N, Bian Z, et al. Determination of phthalic acid esters in cigarette filter by gc/ms. Tob Sci Technol. 2012;3:52–56. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Clark T, Kaußmann E, Römer E, Schepers G. The fate of imidacloprid in tobacco smoke of cigarettes made from imidacloprid-treated tobacco. Pestic Sci. 1998;52(2):119–125. doi: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Dobaradaran S, Schmidt TC, Nabipour I, et al. Cigarette butts abundance and association of mercury and lead along the Persian Gulf beach: an initial investigation. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2018;25(6):5465–5473. doi: 10.1007/s11356-017-0676-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Huang G, Fang Y, Yu H, et al. The determination of lead (Pb) in cigarette filter using graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry with microwave assisted digestion. Acta Tabacaria Sin. 2013;19(4):5–10. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Zhang H, Tang G, Liu N, et al. The fate of maleic hydrazide on tobacco during smoking. Berthod A, Aubriet F, Filik H, Bose D, eds. The Scientific World Journal. 2012;2012:451471. doi: 10.1100/2012/451471 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Brinkman MC, Chuang JC, Gordon SM, et al. Exposure to and deposition of fine and ultrafine particles in smokers of menthol and nonmenthol cigarettes. Inhal Toxicol. 2012;24(5):255–269. doi: 10.3109/08958378.2012.667218 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Polzin GM, Wu W, Yan X, et al. Estimating smokers’ mouth-level exposure to select mainstream smoke constituents from discarded cigarette filter butts. Nicotine Tob Res. 2009;11(7):868–874. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntp080 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Watson C, McCraw J, Polzin G, Ashley D. Development of a method to assess cigarette smoke intake. Environ Sci Technol. 2004;38(1):248–253. doi: 10.1021/es034535e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

1
NIHMS1664599-supplement-1.pdf (149.9KB, pdf)

RESOURCES