ArticlePloS one2025
Estimating the accumulation and re-accumulation of commercial tobacco, electronic cigarette, and cannabis waste based on a stratified random sample of census blocks.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Novel nicotine and tobacco products in pediatric age: a joint position paper.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigated the amount and distribution of waste generated by commercial tobacco, electronic cigarette, and cannabis (TEC) use to inform policy options aimed at mitigating the environmental harm caused by these products. Using disproportionate stratified random sampling, we selected 60 census blocks from the eight largest cities in San Diego County, California. We twice surveyed publicly accessible areas in these blocks to quantify TEC waste accumulation and its re-accumulation. All collected items were photographed, classified, geocoded, counted, and properly discarded. We identified demographic, land use, and behavioral data from public sources and direct observations. We modeled total cigarette butt quantities for all census blocks across the eight cities and found similar results for Round 1 (8.63 million) and Round 2 (8.66 million) collections. Single-use plastic cigarette filters were the primary contributor to TEC waste (94%). Total TEC waste counts and cigarette butt counts showed strong linear associations (r = +0.86 and r = +0.91). The area surveyed, land use category, resident demographics, smoking prevalence, and walkability explained 78% of the variance in cigarette butt count. The interval between Round 1 and 2 counts did not affect re-accumulation counts, suggesting that baseline TEC waste levels were re-established within 1-2 months after cleanup. Annually, we estimate up to 200 million cellulose acetate plastic filters may be discarded in public areas of the eight cities. Given the continuous deposition, vast quantity, heterogeneous distribution, and rapid re-accumulation of TEC waste after cleanup, increasing removal efforts alone are financially untenable and impractical downstream solutions for TEC waste. Community-wide policies (e.g., filter bans, outdoor smoking restrictions) and individual behavior changes (e.g., reduced smoking rates, proper disposal of cigarette butts) are necessary to effectively mitigate the environmental impact of TEC waste in urban settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.