Variation in, and Causes of, Toxicity of Cigarette Butts to a Cladoceran and Microtox

  • T. Micevska
  • M. St. J. WarneEmail author
  • F. Pablo
  • R. Patra


Cigarette butts are the most numerically frequent form of litter in the world. In Australia alone, 24–32 billion cigarette butts are littered annually. Despite this littering, few studies have been undertaken to explore the toxicity of cigarette butts in aquatic ecosystems. The acute toxicity of 19 filtered cigarette types to Ceriodaphnia cf. dubia (48-hr EC50 (immobilization)) and Vibrio fischeri (30-min EC50 (bioluminescence)) was determined using leachates from artificially smoked cigarette butts. There was a 2.9- and 8-fold difference in toxicity between the least and most toxic cigarette butts to C. cf. dubia and V. fischeri, respectively. Overall, C. cf. dubia was more inherently sensitive than V. fischeri by a factor of approximately 15.4, and the interspecies relationship between C. cf. dubia and V. fischeri was poor (R2 = 0.07). This poor relationship indicates that toxicity data for cigarette butts for one species could not predict or model the toxicity of cigarette butts to the other species. However, the order of the toxicity of leachates can be predicted. It was determined that organic compounds caused the majority of toxicity in the cigarette butt leachates. Of the 14 organic compounds identified, nicotine and ethylphenol were suspected to be the main causative toxicants. There was a strong relationship between toxicity and tar content and between toxicity and nicotine content for two of the three brands of cigarettes (R2 > 0.70) for C. cf. dubia and one brand for V. fischeri. However, when the cigarettes were pooled, the relationship was weak (R2 < 0.40) for both test species. Brand affected the toxicity to both species but more so for V. fischeri.


Nicotine Nicotine Content Cigarette Tobacco Ethylphenol Cigarette Butt 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. ASTM (1992) Standard guide for conducting toxicity tests on aqueous effluents with fishes, macro-invertebrates, and amphibians. Designation, E1192–88, Vol 11. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 04:812–828Google Scholar
  2. Cigarette Litter Organisation (2001) The awful truth about cigarette litter. (Date Accessed: 15/04/03)
  3. Cleanup Australia (2002) Rubbish report: A snapshot. Cleanup Australia, Sydney, Australia. (Accessed on 15/04/03)Google Scholar
  4. Glantz SA, Slade J, Bero LA, Hanauer P, Barnes DE (1996) The cigarette papers. University of California Press, Berkeley. (Accessed on 15/04/03)
  5. Gulley DD(1996) TOXSTAT® 3.5, Western Ecosystems Technology Inc., Cheyenne, WyomingGoogle Scholar
  6. Hamilton MA, Russo RC, Thurston RV (1977) Trimmed Spearman Karber method for estimating median lethal concentrations in toxicity bioassays. Environ Sci Tech 11: 714–719. Correction (1978) 12:417Google Scholar
  7. Hoffman D, Hoffman I (1997) The changing cigarette. J Toxic Environ Health 15: 307–364Google Scholar
  8. Julli M, Chapman J, Thompson GT (1990) Use of Australian cladocerans to generate life-cycle toxicity data. Environ Monitor Assess 14: 353–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Konar SK (1970) Nicotine as fish poison. Prog Fish Cult 32:103–104Google Scholar
  10. Konar SK (1977) Toxicity of nicotine to aquatic life. Ind J Fish 24:124–128Google Scholar
  11. Le Blanc GA (1984) Interspecies relationships in acute toxicity of chemicals to aquatic organisms. Environ Toxic Contam 3:47–60Google Scholar
  12. Li S, Banyasz JL, Parrish ME, Lyons-Hart J, Shafer KH (2002) Formaldehyde in the gas phase of mainstream smoke. J Analyt Appl Pyrol 65:137–145Google Scholar
  13. Lucas C (2002) The butt stops here. In The Melbourne Times, Issue 39, October 16, pp 8–9Google Scholar
  14. Microbics Corporation (1998) Microbics Corporation Microtox manual: detailed protocols. 2nd edition. Microbics, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  15. NSW EPA (2001) Laboratory procedures manual. NSW EPA. Ecotoxicology section. Issue number 11. Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  16. Novotney TE, Zhao F. 1999. Consumption and production waste: another externality of tobacco use. Tobac Contr 8:75–80Google Scholar
  17. Register K (2000) Cigarette butts as litter—toxic as well as ugly? Bull Am Litt Soc 25:23–29Google Scholar
  18. Rose RM, Warne MStJ, Lim RP (1997) Inter-species conversion equations for predicting the toxicity of non-polar narcotic chemicals to Ceriodaphnia cf. dubia. Austral J Ecotox 3:75–83Google Scholar
  19. Sprague JB, Fogels A (1978) Watch the Y in bioassay. Environment Protection Service, Halifax, Canada, pp 107–118Google Scholar
  20. US EPA (1991) Methods for aquatic toxicity identification and evaluations: Phase 1 toxicity characterisation procedures. US EPA, Duluth, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  21. US EPA (1993a) Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to freshwater and marine organisms. EPA/600/4- 90/027F, 4th ed. US EPA, Duluth, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  22. US EPA (1993b) Methods for aquatic toxicity identification and evaluation: Phase 2 toxicity identification procedures for samples exhibiting acute and chronic toxicity. US EPA, Duluth, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  23. US EPA (1993c) Methods for aquatic toxicity identification evaluations: Phase 3 toxicity confirmation procedures for samples exhibiting acute and chronic toxicity. US EPA, Duluth, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  24. Victorian Litter Action Alliance (2002) Fact sheet—cigarette butt litter. (Accessed on 15/04/03) Warne MStJ (1991) Mechanisms and prediction of non-specific toxicity of individual compounds and mixtures. Ph.D. thesis, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
  25. Warne MStJ, Patra R, Cole B, Lanau B (in preparation) Toxicity of cigarette butts and their constituents on a freshwater cladoceran and a marine bacteriumGoogle Scholar
  26. Westbury AM, Warne MStJ, Lim R (2004) Toxicity of and development of predictive models for substituted phenols to Ceriodaphnia cf. dubia and Vibrio fischeri. Austral J Ecotox 10:33–42Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Micevska
    • 1
    • 3
  • M. St. J. Warne
    • 2
    • 4
    Email author
  • F. Pablo
    • 2
    • 3
  • R. Patra
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Environmental SciencesUniversity of Technology (UTS)Australia
  2. 2.Ecotoxicology and Water Science SectionDepartment of Environment and Conservation (DEC)Australia
  3. 3.DEC/UTS Centre for EcotoxicologyLidcombeAustralia
  4. 4.CSIRO Land and WaterGlen OsmondAustralia

Personalised recommendations