Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41364653›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Disposal practices of cigarettes and electronic nicotine products among adults, findings from Wave 6 (2021) of the PATH Study.

Eva Sharma, Johanna Dubsky, Katherine V Garcia-Rosales, Michael Halenar, Adam F Benson, Alexander Maki, Andrea L Ruybal, Aura Lee Morse, Michael D Sawdey, Rudaina Alrefai-Kirkpatrick and 10 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Eva SharmaWestat, Rockville, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1328-508X
Johanna DubskyWestat, Rockville, Maryland, United States of America.
Katherine V Garcia-RosalesWestat, Rockville, Maryland, United States of America.
Michael HalenarWestat, Rockville, Maryland, United States of America.
Adam F BensonCenter for Tobacco Products, United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America.
Alexander MakiCenter for Tobacco Products, United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8941-3511
Andrea L RuybalCenter for Tobacco Products, United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2610-090X
Aura Lee MorseCenter for Tobacco Products, United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9707-4433
Michael D SawdeyCenter for Tobacco Products, United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America.
Rudaina Alrefai-KirkpatrickCenter for Tobacco Products, United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America.
Silvana SkaraCenter for Tobacco Products, United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America.
Susana Addo NtimCenter for Tobacco Products, United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6432-0642
Hoshing W ChangCenter for Tobacco Products, United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America.
Ther W AungThe MetroHealth System, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America.
Heather L KimmelNational Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8278-0095
Jennifer L PearsonDepartment of Health Behavior, Policy, and Administration Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Nevada -- Reno, Reno, Nevada, United States of America.
Maansi Bansal-TraversDepartment of Health Behavior, Division of Cancer Prevention & Population Sciences, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, United States of America.
Kristie A TaylorWestat, Rockville, Maryland, United States of America.
Andrew HylandDepartment of Health Behavior, Division of Cancer Prevention & Population Sciences, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, United States of America.
Thomas E NovotnySchool of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, California, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9235-0582

Funding

NIDA NIH HHS HHSN271201100027CNIDA NIH HHS HHSN271201600001C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTobacco product waste is environmentally hazardous but preventable. Therefore, it is important to understand tobacco disposal behaviors among those using tobacco products.

objectivesTo explore self-reported disposal practices of cigarette butts and electronic nicotine products (ENP) components among adults (aged 18+).

methodsWe used nationally representative cross-sectional data from Wave 6 (2021; n = 29,516) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study among adults who used cigarettes (manufactured and/or roll-your-own) and/or ENP every day, some days, or in the past 30 days.

resultsIn 2021, 89.7% (95% CI: 88.7, 90.6) of adults who smoked manufactured cigarettes usually disposed of cigarette butts in landfills (in an ash tray, in a cigarette disposal, or in the trash). Most adults who usually disposed of butts in landfills smoked daily (73.1%; 95% CI: 71.3, 74.9) and smoked an average of 14.6 cigarettes per day. Among those who used ENP, most adults usually disposed of the components in landfills (disposable devices: 83.1%; 95% CI: 80.5, 85.4; empty pods and cartridges: 85.4%; 95% CI: 82.4, 87.9; coils and atomizers: 71.2%; 95% CI: 68.1, 74.1; batteries: 48.5%; 95% CI: 45.2, 51.9; e-liquid containers: 70.9%; 95% CI: 67.1, 74.5; and leftover or unused e-liquid: 50.5%; 95% CI: 45.8, 55.2). Recycling as a usual practice was limited for people who used ENP- for disposable devices: 6.0% (95%CI: 4.6, 7.8); empty pods and cartridges: 5.0% (95% CI: 3.7, 6.8); coils and atomizers: 11.7% (95% CI: 9.4, 14.5); batteries: 23.7% (95% CI: 20.9, 26.8); and e-liquid containers: 18.0% (95% CI: 15.1, 21.3). DISCUSSION: These findings demonstrate the large scope of tobacco product waste disposal in the United States and may inform efforts to address tobacco product waste management, such as environmental impact assessments and consumer education about proper disposal of tobacco products.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsRefuse DisposalTobacco ProductsAdolescentAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41364653
PMCPMC12688147

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.