A Review of Environmental Pollution from the Use and Disposal of Cigarettes and Electronic Cigarettes: Contaminants, Sources, and Impacts

While the impacts of cigarette smoking on human health are widely known, a less recognized impact of tobacco product use and disposal is environmental pollution. This review discusses the current literature related to cigarette and e-cigarette contamination in the context of environmental sources and impacts, with a focus on the documented influences on biota, ranging from bacteria to mammals. Cigarette butts and electronic cigarette components can leach contaminants into soil, water, and air. Cellulose acetate cigarette filters comprising the butts are minimally degradable and are a source of bulk plastic and microplastic pollution, especially in aquatic ecosystems where they tend to accumulate. Cigarette combustion and aerosol production during e-cigarette use result in air contamination from sidestream, exhaled, and thirdhand pathways. The chemical byproducts of tobacco product use contaminate wastewater effluents, landfill leachates, and urban storm drains. The widespread detection of nicotine and cotinine in the environment illustrates the potential for large-scale environmental impacts of tobacco product waste. Studies show that cigarette butt leachate and nicotine are toxic to microbes, plants, benthic organisms, bivalves, zooplankton, fish, and mammals; however, there remain critical knowledge gaps related to the environmental impacts of tobacco product waste on environmental health and ecosystem functioning.

Online Simulation Model to Estimate the Total Costs of Tobacco Product Waste in Large U.S. Cities

Tobacco product waste (TPW) is one of the most ubiquitous forms of litter, accumulating in large amounts on streets, highways, sidewalks, beaches, parks, and other public places, and flowing into storm water drains, waste treatment plants, and solid waste collection facilities. In this paper, we evaluate the direct and indirect costs associated with TPW in the 30 largest U.S. cities. We first developed a conceptual framework for the analysis of direct and indirect costs of TPW abatement. Next, we applied a simulation model to estimate the total costs of TPW in major U.S. cities. This model includes data on city population, smoking prevalence rates, and per capita litter mitigation costs. Total annual TPW-attributable mean costs for large US cities range from US$4.7 million to US$90 million per year. Costs are generally proportional to population size, but there are exceptions in cities that have lower smoking prevalence rates. The annual mean per capita TPW cost for the 30 cities was US$6.46, and the total TPW cost for all 30 cities combined was US$264.5 million per year. These estimates for the TPW-attributable cost are an important data point in understanding the negative economic externalities created by cigarette smoking and resultant TPW cleanup costs. This model provides a useful tool for states, cities, and other jurisdictions with which to evaluate a new economic cost outcome of smoking and to develop new laws and regulations to reduce this burden.

Butting out: an analysis of support for measures to address tobacco product waste

BackgroundCigarette butts are ubiquitous litter items, causing major environmental damage and imposing significant clean-up costs. Tobacco companies frame smokers as both the cause of this problem and the source of its solution. However, an extended producer responsibility perspective challenges this view and holds tobacco companies to account for the full life cycle costs of tobacco product waste (TPW).MethodsUsing an online cross-sectional survey of 396 New Zealand smokers and 414 non-smokers, we estimated awareness of TPW, attribution of responsibility for TPW and support for interventions to reduce TPW. Descriptive analyses and logistic regression models examined associations between demographic attributes and smoking behaviours, and perceptions of TPW and potential solutions to this problem.ResultsMost respondents saw butt litter as toxic to the environment and held smokers primarily responsible for creating TPW. However, when knowledge of butt non-biodegradability increased, so too did the proportion holding tobacco companies responsible for TPW. Changes to product design, fines for littering and expanded smoke-free spaces were considered most likely to reduce TPW. Smokers and non-smokers held different views on measures to address TPW, with smokers favouring more educative approaches and non-smokers more restrictive policies.ConclusionsStrategies to increase awareness of tobacco companies’ role in creating TPW could foster political support for producer responsibility measures that require the industry to manage TPW. Nevertheless, policy measures should continue to foster smoking cessation and decrease uptake, as reducing smoking prevalence presents the best long-term solution to addressing TPW.