cigarette butt degradability task force final report · sampling schemes for cigarette butt...

Cigarette Butt Degradability Task Force

Final Report

Submitted to the CORESTA Scientific CommissionAugust, 2000

CONTENTS

I Summary pp.34

II Final Report of the Accelerated Method Subgroup pp. 5-15

- Appendix : Accelerated Cigarette Butt Disintegration Test pp. 16-22

HI Outdoor Weathering Results of CM2 and 1R3F Filter Butts pp. 23-32on Concrete and Soil From 5 Geographical Locations

- Appendix IFigure 1: Sample Cage p. 33

Figure 2: Test Cages on Soil And Concrete p . 34

Sampling Schemes for Cigarette Butt Degradation Study p . 35

- Appendix II

Tables 8-23 pp. 36-43Figures 3-17 pp. 44-51

- Appendix III

Figures 18-27 pp. 52-61

Task Force on Cigarette Butt Degradability - Final Report - August 2000 page 2

CHAPTER I - SUMMARY

This is the closing report for the Cigarette Butt Degradability Task Force . The Task Forcewas chartered in 1993 by the CORESTA Technology Study Group to develop a method topredict the degradability of cigarette butts outdoors. It is known that butts will degrade overtime due to the action of weathering elements such as sun, wind, rain, and mechanical action ;however, this degradation can take many months or even years, depending upon theenvironmental conditions . The objective of the Task Force was to develop an accelerated testthat could provide consistent results in a matter of days or weeks .

The task was a formidable one . Cigarette butts that are improperly disposed of (litter)experience an extremely wide range of conditions, depending on the locale . There is no"standard" set of temperature, humidity, sunlight, rainfall, etc., which could be used to modelthe disintegration process in the laboratory. The best that could be hoped to be achieved wasto specify a laboratory protocol that was defensible in terms of one selected environment . Ifthis could be done, the methodology might be able to be extended to be representative ofother environments as well .

Early meetings of the Task Force focussed on finding a suitable approach for the testprocedure. It was necessary to strike a balance between the aggressiveness of the degradationmodes (required to reduce analysis time) and the predictive capability of the test . This was avery challenging task . For example, a proposed abrasion test (similar in concept to onecommonly used by the textile industry) provided rapid analysis but bore little resemblance tothe real world situation of cigarette butt degradation in the environment .

Ultimately it was decided to use a type of weathering test proposed by Dr . Larry Renfrow ofEastman Chemical Company. The test employs a commercially available benchtopweatherometcr that combines water, heat and ultraviolet radiation to mimic the effects ofsunlight and rain . An additional procedure whereby the samples are gently agitated in thepresence of metal spheres provides a minimal amount of mechanical degradation and alsoserves to expose fresh surfaces to the action of the weatherometer . Despite its complexity, thetest has its roots in methodology described in ASTM weathering protocols, which provides alink back to conventional and acceptable practices .

After reaching consensus on the adoption of the weatherometer approach, a great deal of timeand effort went into optimizing the techniques and procedures . The result is the methodattached to this report . The procedure works . It will rank cigarette butts in the order in whichthey are likely to disintegrate outdoors under at least one specific set of conditions . Thus, theTask Force achieved its primary goal .

However, two issues remained . One was the length of the test . Total analysis time rangedfrom 12 to 20 weeks . While this allowed the prediction of cigarette butt degradation in afraction of the time that would be required by standard outdoor testing, it is still a longanalysis relative to "normal" laboratory testing .

The second issue involved the statistical treatment of the data . In order to determinerepeatability and reproducibility as is required for CORESTA Recommended Methods, a verylarge commitment on the part of the Task Force member companies would have been


required . Even more significantly, a collaborative study would have meant that additionallaboratories (beyond those of the Task Force) would have had to participate in order togenerate sufficient data . Since this meant a considerable investment in instrumentation aswell as a large workload, it was thought unlikely that the level of interest could justify thescale of the effort .

The Scientific Commission agreed, and directed the Task Force to discontinue itsexperimental efforts and generate a final report . This document serves that purpose. Uponacceptance of this report by the Commission, the Task Force will be disbanded .

I would like to thank everyone who participated on the Task Force . Special recognition goesto Dr. Larry Renfrow of Eastman Chemical, who chaired the Task Force Subgroup thatinvestigated and developed the accelerated test method . Dr. Renfrow provided Section II ofthis report. Also, I would like to recognize Dr. Christopher Cook, who chaired the Task ForceSubgroup that developed the outdoor surface natural degradation protocol . That procedure isalso attached .

Although we did not achieve our ultimate goal, the effort was both interesting and rewarding .Perhaps in the future, new technology and new ideas will afford us another opportunity todevelop a more satisfactory method . Until then, the Cigarette Butt Degradability Task Forcehopes that the CORESTA community will be able to make use of the method and theknowledge presented here .

Respectfully Submitted,

Lance J. Deutsch


CHAPTER II - FINAL REPORT OF THE ACCELERATED METHODSUBGROUP

Introduction

This report describes the work conducted from 1994 to 1999 to develop an acceleratedlaboratory test of cigarette butt degradation . Included are a brief history of the subgroupswhich developed the accelerated method and performed the experimental work, a descriptionof the method including some of the technical issues addressed, a summary of the fourscreening trials, and a review of the major results obtained . This report is not intended todocument all of the experimental work performed, but rather to provide an overview of thework with enough detail to enable the method to be used and/or extended .

Historical Background

At the first few meetings of the Cigarette Butt Degradability Task Force, many diversesuggestions were made for tests to evaluate butt degradation . These tests ranged from asimple laboratory measurement of the time required for the filter and tipping paper to separateto a very complicated biodegradation system . At the third Task Force meeting in London in1994, it was generally agreed that a two-level test regime was needed with one level fordisintegration and the other for biodegradability . It was expected that each level wouldrequire several separate tests to account for different exposure systems . A Core Method sub-group was formed to consider the various proposals and to recommend which should bepursued. This sub-group met once and exchanged ideas by fax and phone, but did notcomplete a recommendation .

At the fourth Task Force meeting in Greensboro, NC, Eastman Chemical Company presenteda prototype method based on a commercial weatherometer which incorporated many of theelements discussed by the Core group . These elements included controlled exposure to light,water, temperature, and mechanical agitation but did not include biological degradation. Onemonth later, at the fifth Task Force meeting in Harare, the Scientific Commission modifiedthe Task Force mission to focus exclusively on non-biological degradation mechanisms forthe method being developed . At that meeting the Accelerated Method sub-group was formedto draft a written method based on the Eastman prototype . This sub-group met once in Hararethen exchanged faxes to draft and review the proposed method . Members of that sub-groupare shown in Table 1 .

Table 1. Accelerated Method Subgroup Participants

Manny CoulonDon DurocherDerek MarinerPeter MartinLarry RenfroDick ShepherdP.P . SinghMike TaylorEberhard TeufelWolfgang WiethaupLance DeutschJerry Whidby

CourtauldsSchweitzer-MauduitRothmansPhilip MorrisEastmanFILITC IndiaFILRhodiaBATCelanesePhilip Morris

Task Force on Cigarette Butt Degradability - Final Report - August 200o page 5

The draft method was presented at the sixth meeting of the Task Force in Newcastle, Englandin March of 1995 . Results from one trial with the method was also presented at the sixthmeeting . The full Task Force accepted the method for further expermental work and charteredthe Screening Trial sub-group to work out the experimental details, demonstrate that themethod could be performed by several independent laboratories, and provide the basis for afull collaborative study .

The Screening Trial subgroup held five meetings and communicated extensively by fax andphone. A summary of the meetings and participation is given in Table 2 .

Table 2. Screening Trial Subgroup Meetings and Participation

Location: Charlotte Richmond Winston- Charlotte CharlotteSalem

Date: June'95 Nov '95 Mar '96 June'96 Jan '97

Host: Celanese Philip RJ Reynolds Celanese Brown &Morris Williamson

Tetry Brodof Celanese J J J J J

Lance Deutsch Celanese J J J ~

Cathy Shimanski Celanese J I J

Barbara Arzonico R.J . Reynolds

Mike Dube R.J. Reynolds J J J JLeslie Lewis R.J . Reynolds J

Humberto Collazo Eastman J ~ I JSteve Haynes Eastman J J J JLarry Renfro Eastman J J J J J

Richard Jupe Philip Motris

Peter Martin Philip Morris ~ ~ J J JBill Musselwhite Schweitzer-Mauduit J J

Don Durocher Schweitzer-Mauduit .f ~

Chris Cook Brown & Williamson J J

Marat Kosliner Brown & Williamson J

Bob Lattie* Atlas ~

* Invited participant

Four collaborative trials were conducted between July, 1995 and June, 1998 . The participantsin the trials are shown in Table 3 . In addition to the four trials, many experiments andmeasurements were made by individual labs .


Table 3. Screening Trial Participants

Trial I Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4

Date Initiated July, 1995 Jan, 1996 July, 1996 Feb, 1998

B.A .T./B&W J J JCelanese J J J JDaicel J JEastman J J J JPhilip Mortis 4 4 4 JR.J. Reynolds 4 4 4 ~

Rhodia JSchweitzer-Mauduit ./

Degradation Method

The purpose of the method is to enable comparison of the degradation rates of differentcigarette butts proportionally to how they would compare if exposed under natural conditions .The expectation was that a laboratory test would be more reproducible and therefore enablebetter comparison of results between different laboratories, and that the test wouldsignificantly accelerate the degradation rate to enable more efficient measurements .

General Considerations

A typical cigarette butt consists of ash, unburned tobacco, filter materials, plug wrap, tippingpaper, adhesives and smoke condensate. There are several different forces present in naturalenvironments including light, water, wind, and heat ; and the diverse materials in a cigarettebutt respond to these forces in different ways . It is important that the forces used in anaccelerated test be balanced in approximately the same way as the natural forces in order forthe test to provide a meaningful comparison of cigarette constructions .

To accelerate the test, the applied forces must be increased over the natural level . Thechallenge is to increase the exposure while maintaining a natural balance of mechanisms andwithin limits which do not introduce artificial degradation mechanisms. For example,increasing the intensity of ultra-violet light can significantly accelerate the degradation ofsome polymers but not effect materials which do not photodegrade easily . Therefore,significant changes to the spectral distribution would provide misleading conclusions aboutthe relative degradation rates for different materials under natural conditions . There aresimilar concerns about excessive temperatures and about abrasive mechanical degradation .

Method Summarv

The method uses a commercial bench-top weatherometer which contains a filtered Xenon arclamp to provide controlled exposure to light and temperature, and a flooding system toprovide water exposure . Mechanical agitation is provided with an external shaker . Tencigarette butts are placed in a stainless steel cup which has holes in the bottom to allow waterto flow in and out . Six cups can be placed in the weatherometer at one time . The cupscontaining the cigarette butts are weighed at the start of a trial and after each week of


exposure to determine the weight loss of the butts . The cups are rotated weekly to minimizethe effects of temperature and Iuminance gradients within the instrument .

The last version of the accelerated degradation method is attached . This version wasreviewed by the sub-group prior to the fourth trial in 1998 .

Instruments

Two different types of weatherometers were used by participating labs during the four trials .The original prototype method was developed using an Atlas SunChex weatherometer whichwas the type of instrument used by most labs in the first two trials. A Heraeus Sun Testinstrument was available in Europe and an older version of the instrument was used by onelab in the first trial . At about the time the second trial was concluding, there was aconsolidation of manufacturers and the SunChex instrument was discontinued . For the thirdand fourth trials, both the older SunChex and newer Sun Test were used by participating labs .

Temperature . Air Flow, and Luminance

The Xenon arc lamp is the major source of heat in the weatherometer, so the sampletemperature is directly related to luminance . At a specified luminance, the only way to reducethe temperature is by increasing the air flow .

The SunChex has a fixed fan speed and the fan runs whenever the lamp is on . Since there isno auxiliary air cooling system available, the minimum sample temperature can not becontrolled independent of the luminance . There is an auxiliary heater which makes it possibleto raise the temperature above that generated by the light .

In the Sun Test, there is a blackbody thermocouple in the chamber which controls the fanspeed to maintain a constant temperature reading, but there is a lower limit below whichindependent control is not possible . With the black body thermocouple set to its minimumvalue, the fan will run continuously at its maximum speed and the temperature will bedetermined solely by the luminance . Because the air flow pattern produces temperaturegradients in the instrument and because of the color difference between the thermocouple andtypical cigarette butts, the actual sample temperature is related to, but not the same as, thatread by the thermocouple .

In general, the lowest temperature possible with the Sun Test was higher than the SunChex atcomparable luminance settings. Also, under those conditions, with the Sun Test set to itslowest possible temperature, the air flow pattern tended to blow filter papers out of the cupswhich invalidates subsequent weight loss measurements .

Measuring the appropriate sample temperature and establishing a control system for theseinstruments was a major effort of the Screening Trial sub-group .

Samnles

The primary source of samples used in the screening trials were CORESTA Monitor testarticles . CM-I articles were used for the first three trials and CM-2 articles were used in thefourth trial . Kentucky Reference 1R3F Cigarettes were included in the third and fourth trials .


It had been reported to the Task Force that the tipping papers separated more readily fromsome types of cigarettes than others. It was also recognized that separation of the tippingpapers would have a large effect on degradation rates, so samples were included in each trialwhich had the tipping paper and plug wrap removed prior to testing. This was intended toprovide a range of degradation rates and to ensure that the method developed was applicableto different types of cigarette constructions .

To simplify testing and to eliminate sources of error in the screening trials, the tobaccocolumn portion of the cigarette butt was removed by cutting at the end of the filter . Also,except for the first trial, the butts tested were not smoked, which simplified the testpreparations and eliminated the tar loss as a source of error. Since the unburned tobacco andtar disperse rapidly, excluding these components from this accelerated laboratory test reducesthe measured degradation level over what would be found for typical discarded cigarettebutts, but does not change the relative ranking of different designs . It was expected that thefinal method would use smoked butts and include the tobacco and ash portions .

Comparin Resultsesults

To compare results, the percent of the initial sample weight remaining was plotted as afunction of exposure time . This provides a direct indication of the degradation rates, butrequires that the total exposure per unit time be the same in all laboratories .

An alternative way to compare results from different laboratories is to compute the percentweight remaining at the time that a reference sample reaches a specified weight loss . Theactual exposure time for the reference sample to reach the target weight loss may be differentfor individual labs depending on the lamp intensity, temperature, etc . This relative calculationattempts to compensate for differences in exposure rates and to make the comparison betweenlaboratories at the same exposure level rather than the same time . The relative comparisonrequires that the reference sample be included in all analyses .

Screening Trials

The Screening Trial sub-group conducted four collaborative trials to refine and validate themethod. The main differences in experimental conditions between the trials are summarizedin Table 4 .

Task Force on Cigarette Butt Degradabitity - Final Report - August 2000 page 9

Table 4. Procedure Differences between Screening Trials

Triall Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4Filters, nm (SunChexs) 280+300 300 only 300 only 280 onlyLuminance 0.40 w/m2 0.30 w/m2 0.35 w/m2 0.35 w/m2Calibration ? Avg. of 6 ports Avg. of 6 ports Avg. of 6 ports

Detector in Detector in Detector incenter of a center of a center of cupmeasuring cup measuring cup SunChex:

compensate fordrift.

Heater ? off off onTemperature Control - - - WSTCycle 8 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrs 12 hrsFlooding 10 min 18 min 18 min 18 minLamp during flooding off on on onAgitation wet & dry dry only dry only dry onlySample Cup Solid sidewalls Solid sidewalls Solid sidewalls wire mesh

sidewallsSmoke Cigarettes ? Yes No No NoSamples CM-LL CM-L• CM-1 : CM-2 :

4 of Cups, exposed 4 with 2 with 2 with 2 withwith or without 2 without 2 without 2 without 2 withoutpapers 2 with, KR-1R3F : KR-IR3F :

presoak I with I withfilters I without I without

The first screening trial started in July, 1995 with four labs using SunChex instruments andone using an older Heraeus Sun Test . There was good consistency between the replicationswithin each laboratory but a significant difference in degradation between the labs, especiallyfor the samples with the papers removed .

Following that result, a cross-comparison of luminance meters and the temperature probeswas conducted. Improved procedures were developed for calibration and control of theluminance and for cleaning and changing the lamps and filters . Since several of theinstruments were not able to maintain 0 .40W/mZ luminance throughout the trial, the targetwas decreased to 0 .30W/mZ and the 280nm cut-off filter was not used for the second trial .Also, the cycle was changed to 12 hours to facilitate scheduling of the agitation step andseveral other details not specified in the first trial were clarified .

The second trial was initiated in January of 1996 with the four SunChex labs participating . Inaddition to the CM-1 samples with-papers and without-papers, 2 cups were included in whichthe butts were soaked in water prior to the first exposure cycle to facilitate tipping paperseparation . The results showed no impact of the pre-soaking, good agreement betweenreplication within each lab and improved agreement between labs . However, a significantdifference between the labs remained. The temperature and luminance control was improved,but the degradation rate was reduced which required a longer experiment, and the lamp andfilter life remained unacceptable .

Following the second trial, there was a major effort to evaluate and improve the uniformityand stability of the lamps and filters . A significant difference in the equipment used formechanical agitation was identified as the likely cause of the difference in degradation


observed in the second trial, and a change to the procedure was introduced to accommodatedifferent types of shakers .

At about the time the second trial was completed, the original SunChex weatherometer wasdiscontinued . Two additional companies obtained weatherometers and both were the newerSunTest instruments now supplied by Atlas . Also, one of the labs originally using a SunChexswitched to the Sun Test . Considerable discussion and experimentation took place to try toidentify the critical differences between the instruments and to expand the procedure toaccommodate both types . This work included examination of the spectral distribution andtemperature profiles of both instruments .

The third trial was started in July of 1996 with seven labs participating, three with Sun Testand four with SunChex instruments (Daicel, which had a SunChex, participated in the thirdand fourth trials) . As before, two replicates each of CM-1 with- and without-papers wereincluded . In addition, one cup each of Kentucky Reference Cigarette IR3F with- andwithout-papers was included . The luminance target was increased to 0 .35 W/mZ .

Again the within-lab reproducibility was very good but the difference between labs persisted .There was good agreement among the SunChex labs and good agreement among the Sun Testlabs, but a significant difference between results from the two types of instruments .

Table 5 shows the relative degradation comparison for the third trial. CM-1 without paperwas used as the reference . The time for CM-I without papers to reach 80% weight remainingwas determined by interpolation and the percent weight remaining for the other samples atthat time was calculated. Only the results for the four labs for which the CM-1 without paperreached 80% are included.

Table 5. Relative Degradation Comparison for the Third Trial

Hours to 80% for % Weight Loss at Indicated Exposure TimeCM-1 CM-1 1B3F IR3F

Instrument Without Paper With Paper With Paper Without Paper

SunChex 985 85.2 91.6 85.9SunChex 1058 84.8Sun Test 508 86.5 89.2 85.1Sun Test 533 88.2 91.3 85.5

This table illustrates the difference between the instruments . It took about twice as long in theSunChexs than in the Sun Tests for the reference sample to reach 80% of its initial weight .However, when the comparisons are made relative to the selected reference, there is verygood agreement between all of the labs and for both types of instruments .

These results were encouraging, but the sub-group felt that the difference in exposure for thereference sample was too large, and that the relative comparison should be verified with morelaboratories .

There was a concerted effort to clarify and resolve the temperature difference between the twoinstrument types and to refine the spectral distribution . Although there was agreement thatthe actual butt temperature was the important criteria, it was difficult to decide how tomeasure that temperature appropriately and to determine if the measurements made bydifferent labs in different instruments were comparable . It was finally determined that thesample temperatures in the Sun Tests were higher than in the SunChex which probablyexplained the difference between instruments in the third trial . Attempts to match the

Task Force on Cigarette Butt Degradability - Final Report - August 2000 page I I

temperatures while maintaining constant luminance produced air flows in the Sun Tests whichblew filter papers out of the cups . Air deflectors for the Sun Test were designed (SMI) andrefined (B&W) to reduce the paper disruption, but these tended to increase the sampletemperatures . Rhodia provided a cup design with wire mesh sidewalls which enabled thetemperature in the cups to be controlled at acceptable air flow levels .

Rhodia also worked with Atlas to obtain a white standard thermocouple, WST, which wouldfit into a cup and accurately represent the real sample temperature . Using the WST todetermine the appropriate set point and the blackbody thermocouple to control the fan speed,it was possible to control the Sun Tests to a sample temperature which the SunChexs couldmatch by use of their auxiliary air heaters .

The fourth trial started in February, 1998 . The wire-mesh sidewall beakers were used by alllabs. One WST was circulated to all labs to calibrate their temperature control system to acommon temperature of 55C . Auxiliary heaters were used in the SunChexs and the lightfilters in the SunChexs were changed to the 280nm filters. The samples were the same as inthe third trial except that CM-2 articles were used instead of the CM-1 articles which were nolonger available . The results from the fourth trial are summarized in Figures 1 and 2 .

Figure 1. Fourth Trial Results - CM-2

0 500 1500

Exposure, hrs

2000 2500 3000


Figure 2. Fourth Trial Results -1R3F

0 500 1500

Expoaura, hts

2000 2500 3000

These figures illustrate the wealth and the complexity of the information obtained in thesetrials. For lR3F, without-paper was faster than with-paper for all labs and instruments, butthe difference between with-papers and without-papers for CM-2 was less pronounced . Therewas good agreement among SunChexs for all samples . There was good agreement amongSun Tests for KR-lR3F (except for one lab) but not very good agreement among Sun Testsfor CM-2's . In this case, the relative degradation calculations, summarized in Table 6, did notcompletely eliminate differences between labs and instruments .


Table fi. Relative De adation Com arison for the Fourth TrialHours to 75% for % Weight Loss at Indicated Exposure Time

IR3F CM-2 CM-2 IR3FInstrument Without Paper With Paper Without Paper With Paper

SunChex 2201 81.8 77 .9 88 .4Sun Test 2481 80.0 87 .8 94 .8Sun Test 1428 85.7 82 .5 88 .3Sun Test 1459 82.0 75 .8 88 .1Sun Test 1384 84.9 73 .4 88 .0

As in the first three trials, all laboratories showed good reproducibility for the replicatesamples. The CM-2 samples degraded slower than CM-I, so the overall weight loss waslower for the CM samples than in previous trials .

There was no Screening Trial sub-group meeting following the fourth trial so no officialreview of these results was conducted. However, in discussions at the Task Force meeting,several members agreed that the basic method was sound and should enable comparableresults from various labs . The differences between labs observed in the fourth trial probablyresulted from an incomplete execution of the WST calibration procedure and from differencesin the spectral distribution of the instruments . Because only one WST was available, mostlabs did not have the WST available to verify the instrument settings at the time the trialstarted . It was felt the availability of WST detectors in each lab and more attention to thecalibration process should resolve the temperature differences . No obvious solution to thedifferences in spectral distributions was suggested . Also, no suggestions were made aboutways to accelerate the test. A concern was expressed that differences in the drying regimes ofthe butts after water exposure may contribute to the variability of the results .

Summary

A generally applicable method for assessing the non-biological degradability of cigarette buttshas been developed . The method uses commercially available instruments and equipment,and can be conducted with normal laboratory skills . The method was successfully applied byeight different laboratories with generally comparable results . However, there were enoughdifferences between the results from different laboratories to prevent the recommendation ofthis method for general use without additional work .

A careful review of the temperature calibration procedure and improved specification of thespectral distribution is needed . Also, samples with significantly different degradation ratesare needed to enable a robust validation of the method . The method is intended to rank thedegradation rates of cigarette butts relative to a reference sample . It is very difficult tovalidate the method if there is only a small difference in rates between the samples and thereference .

Ultimately the time required to conduct meaningful test with this method was judged to be toolong to meet its intended need .

Task Force on Cigarette Butt Degradability - Final Repurt - August 2000 page 14

It is always difficult to establish and verify an analytical method for use by differentlaboratories . It is more difficult when the labs are geographically separated and representdifferent, competing companies . In this case it should be emphasized that the potentialdifficulties in working with diverse locations and companies did not contribute to theproblems encountered in developing this method. There was no lack of cooperation orparticipation among sub-group members, and no lack of resources applied to this effort . Thedifficulties encountered in this work were all technical .

This area of work was new to all of the sub-group members, so there was considerablelearning required by all participants . The learning was made more difficult by the fact thatmost of the available reference work supported efforts to enhance stability not degradability,and were applied to single component products not systems composed of different types ofmaterials. Sub-group participants studied the literature, consulted with experts, attendedcourses, and conducted many independent experiments to identify and resolve the variousissues .

While it is disappointing not to have produced a complete method, the sub-group can beproud of the knowledge gained and progress made in this complex area . The group can alsobe proud that the difficult issues were addressed and not ignored, and that a meaningless ormisleading method was not released .


APPENDIX : ACCELERATED CIGARETTE BUTT DISINTEGRATION TEST

Revision 4

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

This method compares the persistence of cigarette butt samples under conditions whichsimulate the exposure when cigarette butts are discarded as litter, except that exposure tobiological activity is not included . It is intended to enable the relative ranking of a series ofcigarette samples according to the persistence of the butts in the simulated environment .

In many natural situations, biological attack as well as chemical and physical forces worktogether to degrade cigarette butts . Because biological exposure is not included, this test mayincorrectly rank a series of samples if there is a significant difference in their susceptibility tobiological attack . The method can only be used to compare the overall environmental impactof cigarette butt materials and constructions in conjunction with a separate evaluation ofbiodegradability. A separate method would be needed to define and measure thebiodegradability of individual materials .

METHOD SUMMARY

Smoked cigarette butts are placed in a test cup and exposed to cycles of light, water,temperature, and mechanical stress in different combinations . As the cigarette buttsdisintegrate, the separated portions pass out of the sample cup . The weight of the parts of thecigarette butt remaining in the test cup are measured periodically .

Results are reported as the percent of the initial sample weight remaining at the time when thereference material has 75% of its initial weight remaining-

Eauipment

Test Chamber :All exposure except the mechanical agitation are in a single unit which includes the lightsource, cooling fan(s), air heater, water flooding capability, and a timed controlmechanism . Two instruments are currently in use : the Atlas SunChex and the Atlas SunTest .

Sample Cup:

A description of the sample cups is given in the attached Figure 1 .

Cup Holder:

The sample cups are placed in a holder with fixed, reproducible positions relative to thelight source, fan(s), and water supply . The holder keeps the sample cups off the bottomof the flooding chamber so that the water flows freely through the holes in the bottom ofthe cups. The sample cups are rotated between the fixed positions following eachmechanical agitation step to ensure even exposure to all of the elements .

Task Force on Cigarette Butt Degadability - Final Report - August 2000 page 16

Light Exposure:

The light source is a Xenon arc lamp with a daylight type spectral distribution . ForSunChex instruments, the 280 nm filter without the infrared filter should be used . ForSun Test instruments, the 290 nm coated filter should be used .The average irradiance over all sample positions is 0 .35±1 watts/m2 measured with a 10nm bandpass detector centered at 340 nm placed in the center of a sample cup .

Temperature Control :The sample cups are enclosed so that the light source causes a temperature rise in thechamber. A cooling fan or air heater is used to control the temperature to between55t3°C which is reached within 15 minutes after the start of a light cycle . Thetemperature attained by a filter sample is estimated using a White StandardThermometer placed horizontally in the bottom of a sample cup. The averagetemperature for all six sample positions recorded after 15 minutes equilibration time isused. If a White Standard Thermometer is not routinely available, a Black PanelTemperature sensor (which is used with the Atlas Multimonitor) may be used as asecondary reference after calibrating against a White Standard Thetmometer .

Water Exposure :During the wet cycle, the sample cups are flooded to a depth of 20 mtn withdemineralized water which is between 18 and 20°C. The water enters and exits throughthe holes in the bottom of the sample cups . It takes approximately 30 seconds to fill thecups and approximately 15 seconds to drain after the end of a flooding cycle .

Light/Flood Sequence:The timing sequence is 702 minutes in which the light is on and the cooling fan andheater are activated, followed by 18 minutes of flooding . The xenon lamp remains onduring the flooding cycle.The light/flood sequence is repeated continuously for 8 12-hour cycles except wheninterrupted for mechanical agitation . After the eighth flooding cycle, typically onFriday, light exposure is continued for at least 4 hours to ensure that the samples are dryprior to starting the equilibration step .

Agitation Medium :4 stainless steel balls, 16 mm in diameter and weighing approximately 16 g/ball, are

used in each sample cup during the mechanical agitation cycle .

Agitator:A rotary shaker with a 13mm diameter circular orbit set to oscillate approximately 185revolutions per minute . Alternatively, a shaker with a different orbit diameter may beused, and the required rotation speed calculated as follows :

r=~~ ~ 2 •185

r = rotation speed, rpm

d =orbit diameter,mm


PROCEDURE

l . Determine the irradiance and temperature set-point targets as described in the Calibrationsection. These targets must be determined at the start of each analysis, each time thelamp is replaced or repositioned, and each time the filter is cleaned or replaced .

2. Number and weigh each sample cup .

3. Smoke the cigarettes according to CORESTA method number 23 .

4. Cut the butts at the junction between the filter and the remaining tobacco column anddiscard the tobacco column portion .

5. For each sample, place 10 butts in a sample cup .

6. Equilibrate the sample cups with the butts according to CORESTA method number 21for 48 hours .

7. Record the weight of the cups and butts .

8. Turn on the lamp and allow the instrument to warm up for 30 minutes .

11 . Set the irradiance level at the selected monitor position as determined by the procedure inthe CALIBRATION section so that the average irradiance is 0 .35f1 W/m2 .

12 . Set the temperature level at the selected monitor position as determined by the procedurein the CALIBRATION section so that the average temperature is 55±3 °C .

13 . Place the sample cups in the test chamber and start the exposure sequence. The sequenceshould start on a light cycle, and run continuous cycles of the light and flooding steps for96 hours (8 12-hour cycles) .

14. Allow the exposure sequence to ran through one complete 702-minute light cycle, one18-minute flooding cycle, and approximately 600 minutes into the next light cycle .

15 . Within 2 hours of the start of each even numbered flooding cycle, interrupt the cyclewhile the samples are dry, and remove the cups from the chamber .

16. Add 4 steel balls to each cup, and shake on the rotary shaker for 10 minutes at 185 rpmor at the rate determined above for shakers with a radius other than 13 mm .

17. Remove the steel balls, and return the cups to the cup holder rotating the cup order oneposition clockwise from their previous positions .

18. Allow the exposure sequence to continue so that the interrupted light cycle is completedfollowed by an 18-minute flooding cycle .

19. Repeat steps 13 through 18 until 96 hours of exposure and four agitation steps have beencompleted .

20. After the fourth agitation sequence, return the samples to the exposure chamber andcontinue the exposure sequence through the next flooding cycle and for at least fourhours into the next light cycle . The samples should have received approximately 100hours of exposure and be at their maximum dryness prior to starting the equilibration .

21 . Record the exact number of hours of exposure .

22. Remove the test cups from the test chamber and record the chamber irradiance andtemperature at the monitor positions as described in the CALIBRATION section .

Task Force on Cigarette Butt r)egradability - Final Report - August 2000 page 18

23. Equilibrate the samples in the cups according to CORESTA method number 21 for 48hours .

24. After equilibration, record the weight of the cups with the samples .

25. Calculate the percent of the initial weight remaining for each sample as described below .

26. Repeat steps 8 through 25 until the reference sample has less than 75% of its originalweight remaining .

If testing is started on a Monday, the agitation steps will occur at approximately thesame time each day on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. The sampleswill equilibrate over Saturdays and Sundays, and will be measured on Mondays .

Calculations

The percent of the initial weight remaining is calculated after each week of exposure asfollows :

WR,=100.[(wt,-wtr,r~l

W to - Wt ~,,P

Where :

WRx = fraction of the sample remaining after x-hours of exposure .Wts = sample and cup weight after x-hours of exposure

Wt,„P = empty cup weight recorded prior to exposure (step 2) .

Wt0 = sample and cup weight prior to exposure (step 7) .

CALIBRATION: Irradiance and Temperature Calibration and Measurement Procedure

I . Turn on the instrument and allow the lamp to warm up for at least 30 minutes .

2 . Record the irradiance at each sample position using the 340nm detector mounted in thecenter of a sample cup . When moving the detector, minimize the time the sample door isopen, and allow the lamp to equilibrate for 2 minutes before recording the irradiance .

3 . Average the six readings .

4. Choose one of the six positions for adjustments and compute the target irradiancereading for the selected position as follows :

T_A,#0.350Avg

Task Force on Cigarette Butt Dcgradability - Final Report - August 2000 page 19

Ti = the target reading in the selected (ith) position,Ai = the actual reading in the selected (ith) position from step 2,0.350 = the desired average irradiance, andAvg = the actual average irradiance from step 3 .

For instruments such as the Sun Test which have an automatic lamp adjustment, thetarget as calculated above will be the same until there is a lamp or filter change . Forinstruments such the SunChex which do not have an automatic lamp adjustment, anadditional calculation is required to ensure that the irradiance averages 0 .35 W/m2between the weekly adjustments .

5. After one week of exposure, and each week thereafter, compute the target exposure asfollows :

T=( 2*T .tasr 1*ToI\ T ,~r + A 'I;

T,° = the original target calculated in step 4 above,

T, jQst = the target estimated for the previous week,

A; = the current reading for the selected position .

6. With the detector head in the selected position, slowly adjust the lamp current until theirradiance reads the target value within 0.01 W/mZ. Allow time for the lamp toequilibrate between current adjustments .

7. With the irradiance adjusted to the target level, record the temperature at each sampleposition using the White Standard Thermometer mounted horizontally in the center of asample cup. Place sample cups in each of the other positions . Minimize the time thesample door is open when moving the detector, and allow the lamp to equilibrate for 15minutes before recording the luminance .

8. Average the six readings .

9 . Choose one of the six positions for adjustments and compute the target temperaturereading for the selected position as follows :

T (A, + 273 )• (55 .0 + 273) _ 273(Avg + 273)

T = the target reading in °C at the selected (ilh) position,

Ai = the actual reading in °C at the selected (ith) position from step 7,55.0 = the desired average temperature in °C,Avg = the actual average temperature in °C from step 8, and273 = converts the temperatures to °K for the calculation .

10. With the WST in the selected position, adjust either the BST temperature control setting(Sun Test) or the auxiliary heater level (SunChex) until the temperature reads the targetvalue within 3°C . Allow approximately 15 minutes for the chamber and thermometer toequilibrate between adjustments .

Task Force on Cigarette Butt Degmdability - Final Report - August 2000 page 20

The White Standard Thermometer should be used for determining the average chambertemperature. However, if a WST is not routinely available, a blackbody Temperaturesensor may be used as a secondary reference after setting the average chambertemperature to 55°C as described above with a WST

11 . Remove the sample cups from positions 2 and 5 and place the BPT sensor on top of thesample cup holder centered in the chamber .

12. Allow the panel to equilibrate for 15 minutes and record the temperature reading . Thisreading will be the target for weekly temperature adjustments .

Example:

Initial irradiance readings by cup position :

3 : 0.307 2 : 0311 1 : 0317

4 : 0.302 5 : 0.306 6: 0.310

Average = 0 .3088

Using position 6 for the adjustments, the target value is :

T _0.310*0.350_0.351

6 0.3088

With the detector in position 6, the lamp was adjusted until the reading was stable on -0 .351(it always fluctuates some in the last position) . Subsequent readings gave the following :

3 : 0.347 2 : 0.365 1 : 0.362

4 : 0.338 5 : 0.353 6 : 0.352

Average = 0 .353


Figure 1. Disintegration Sample Cup

Sample cups were constructed from 600 ml stainless steel beakers . Holes were drilled in thebottom as shown below . The heighth of the cups were cut to 20mm and 35mm high stainlesssteel wire mesh sidewalls were added. 10mm bands, cut from the beakers were attached tothe top of the mesh for strength .

Hole Pattern: Thirteen holes, 6.35mm in diameter, drilled in the bottom of the beaker in twoconcentric rings around a center hole . The outer circle has a radius of 35 mm with eight holesequally spaced at 45 degrees . The inner circle has a radius of 19 mm with four holes equallyspaced at 90 degrees . One hole is in the center . The edges of the holes were polished toremove all burrs or protrusions .

Dimensions in mm :

85

.. . . . . .. . ...Y . . . . .. . ...... . . .. . .W... .10.~ _.. . .. .. . ..

Task Force on Cigarette Butt rkgradability - Final Report - August 2000 page 22

CHAPTER III : OUTDOOR WEATHERING RESULTS OF CM2 AND1R3F FILTER BUTTS ON CONCRETE AND SOILFROM 5 GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS

CONTRIBUTORS: Brown and Williamson TobaccoDr. Christopher J. CookDr. Aaron P. Williams

Eastman Chemical CompanyDr. Huberto CollazoDr. Jack L. HensleyDr. Larry W. Renfro

Filtrona InternationalDr. Michael TaylorMr. David Mosscrop

Japan Tobacco Inc.Mr. Junichi FujiwaraMr. Yoichiro Yamashita

Papeteries De MauduitDr. Christophe Le MoigneMr. Francois-Marie Robin

SUMMARY

The outdoor testing subgroup of the CORESTA Cigarette Butt Degradability Task Force(CBDTF) measured the degradability of the CORESTA Monitor 2 (CM2) and KentuckyReference 1R3F filter butts at different locations across the world. These locations includedMacon, GA USA ; Yokohama, Japan; Le Mans, France; Kingsport, TN USA and Jarrow,England. The average monthly weathering conditions at these sites provided a range fortemperature (4°C-29°C), wind speed (4 km/h-14 km/h), humidity (52%-9l %), rainfall (Omm-323mm), and solar irradiance (53 MJ/m2-723 MJ/m2) . By monitoring the weather conditionsat these sites, this data was useful in setting the realistic real world limits for theweatherometer indoor trials .

Results of the 12 month outdoor testing showed the average weight loss for CM2 and I R3F tobe 26% and 24%, respectively. There was very good agreement among all labs for studiesconducted on concrete. Studies conducted on soil proved to be very inconsistent due toforeign matter becoming entrained in the filters . The outdoor weathering parameter whichbest correlated to weight loss on concrete was solar irradiance . Results of this study proveduseful in setting the realistic real world limits for the weatherometer indoor trials .

INTRODUCTION

There has been an increased awareness of litter from discarded cigarette butts in publicplaces' . Cellulose acetate (CA) filters are biodegradableZ•3, but the process takes manymonths and requires moisture and microbes . New developments in filter technology maysignificantly reduce the lifetime of cigarette butts in the environment . Before we can rate thedegradability of cigarette butts, we have to define a standard method or procedure toaccomplish this . That is the focus of the CORESTA Cigarette Butt Degradability Task Force(CBDTF) .


The objective of the CORESTA CBDTF is to develop a standard method for measuring thedisintegration of smoked cigarette butts into nonrecognizable component parts that are readilydispersed. The test, or series of tests, should be as simple as possible, compatible with givingreliable results representative of the environmental conditions in which cigarettes aredisposed .

The CORESTA CBDTF is divided into two main subgroups : one which focuses on theoutdoor degradability, and one which focuses on the indoor, accelerated testing method. Theresults obtained from the outdoor study are used to aid in defining the framework for theaccelerated test . The indoor test is set up to be approximately four times faster than theoutdoor test .

This paper only entails the work accomplished by the outdoor subgroup of the CORESTACBDTF.

EXPERIMENTAL

1 . Test Materials

ISO smoked CORESTA Monitor 2 (CM2) and Kentucky Reference (IR3F) cigarettebutts . A cigarette butt is defined as the filter element plus tipping overwrap minus allremaining tobacco .

2. Outdoor Testing Ground

2.1 LocationThe test site should be located in a well draining open and sunny area away from tallbuildings and trees. Efforts should be made to minimize interference from human oranimal activity .

2.2 Surface PreparationSoil: The surface of the earth is loosened with a small fork or spatula, weeds pulledand stones and pebbles greater than 3 cm removed . The test surface is then leveledwith a rake. Vegetation can be allowed to (i) grow naturally on the soil surfaceduring the study or (ii) it can be kept free of vegetation through weekly weeding orappropriate treatment with a systemic post-emergence herbicide. For (i) vegetationshould be cut down to a height of 20 cm . Cutting should be done on a monthly basisduring the growing season . For (ii) avoid disturbing the samples during weeding orspraying the test samples directly with herbicide .

Concrete: An area of leveled ground is covered with a single slab of smooth concretethat has a normal gray color .

2.3 Sample CagesStainless steel wire net with a mesh size of approximately 5x5 mm and a wirediameter of 1mm. Cage sizes : 45 cm length, 30 cm wide, and 10 cm height with six150x150 mm compartments (Figure 1) . Test cages are placed on top of the testsurface. Cages are secured by digging into the soil (approx . 3 cm) or securing withpegs. Multiple cages should be spaced at least 15 cm apart . (Figure 2) .


2.4 Soil AnalysisThe particle size distribution of the soil is quantified at the beginning of the study°and its moisture content5 and pH6 determined on a six monthly basis . Optional : Thebiological activity of the soil can be determined using a standard procedure2•s9•1°preferentially at the beginning, middle, and end of the study, but at least at thebeginning and end of the experiment .

No parameters will be monitored for the concrete surface .

3. Sample Placement

Test specimens are put in the sample cages ; 20 specimens/compartment x 6compartments/cage = 120 specimens per cage . Identification tags (specimen codenumber, brand names, etc .) are attached to the cages . Each compartment will contain thesame kind of cigarette butt . Initial photographs should be taken per section 6 .2 .

4. Monitoring of Weather Conditions

Sun radiation, wind, precipitation, humidity, and temperature should be monitored duringthe outdoor studies (Table 1) .

4.1 Sun Activity

The total amount of solar energy impinging the samples will be monitored using themonthly irradiance values (MJ/mZ) obtained from a Meteorological agency preferablylocated within 50 km of the test site .

4.2 Wind

The mechanical impact of wind will be monitored using the average monthly windspeed obtained from a Meteorological Agency .

4.3 Precipitation, Temperature, and Humidity

The average monthly temperature (including freeze/thaw cycles) and humidity andtotal monthly rain and snowfall values will be obtained from a MeteorologicalAgency .

Table 1

Monitoring of Outdoor Weather Conditions

Mo~

TotalIrradlanca

MJfm 2

AverageS Wind Average

Temperature

Number of

F~wAverageHmnidity

Total

Rainfall

Total

Snowhlryl

5. Sample Collection

The specimens are collected at predetermined time intervals of I month, 3 months, 6 months,9 months, 12 months, and 18 months using the sampling procedure shown in Table 2 .Sampling schemes for additional test samples are listed in Appendix I . Time intervals can beadjusted to match rate of degradation of samples . However, a minimum test duration of 12months in recommended .


Table 2Sampling Scheme for One Cage Containing One Control and One Test Sample

MonMGompvtrrwnt

1Test aam e

ComprhnaM2

Oontrol Sem N

t:oml7ndnam3

Test Sam4

ContrW Sem

CompaemwM5

Tast Sam

empararNm6

Control Sam

1 3 4 3 3 4 33 3 3 4 3 3 46 4 3 3 4 3 39 3 4 3 3 4 312 3 3 4 3 3 418 4 3 3 4 3 3

Total Butts 20 20 20 20 20 20

6. Sample Analysis

6.1 External Appearance

The change in external appearance is written down in detail . The degradation isestimated visually and ratings assigned per Table 3 . Plugwrap and tipping paperratings along with shape ratings are recorded in Table 4 .

Table 3Tipping, Plugwrap, and Shape

Tipping Paper ~~ Plugwrap ~ P $hape of Filter shami

No change in100 No change in 100 The shape of fiHer 100

tipping paper plugwrap not changed

Partial loss of 66 Partial loss of 66 The shape of filter 66tipping paper plugwrap is partially broken

Major loss in33

Major loss in 33The shape of BHeris considerably 33tipping paper plugwrap broken

All tipping paper0

All plugwrap The shape of filter

degraded degraded 0 is completely 0broken

Table 4Sample Analysis

Record Cigarette Butt Cigarette Butt

Months Shape Tipping Paper Plugwrap Weight Volume

AgingRating Rating Paper Rating X Remaining % Remaining

Mean t ad Mean i ad01369

12 min .18


6.2 PhotographsThe change in external appearance is documented by photographs . Include a 1 cm or1 inch scale to help assess size . Alternatively, an original nondegraded tip could bephotographed with the set to allow quick comparisons .

6.3 Weight Measurements

(i) The cigarette butt is dried in an oven at 105°C for 3 hours . The dried butt is gentlycleaned with a soft brush to remove dirt and plant matter . The cleaned butt is thenconditioned for 48 hours at 22°C ± 1°C and 60% ± 2% RH and then weighed. Themean and the standard deviation of the weight measurements are then recorded inTable 4 .

Optional:(ii) The filter plug is carefully separated from the tipping and plugwrap and placedinto a 125 mm diameter X 65 mm height glass stirring dish with 100 ml water . Thefilter plug is gently agitated for 30 minutes using a magnetic stirrer to remove dirt andplant matter. The filter plug is then removed from the water, allowed to drain andthen dried in an oven at 105°C for 3 hours . The dried filter plug is conditionedovernight at 22°C±1and 60% ± 2% RH and then weighed. The mean and standarddeviation of weight measurements is recorded .

(iii) For CA based filters, the weight of CA remaining can be estimated by acetoneextraction. The CA filter plug is carefully separated from the tipping and plugwrapand placed into a glass vial together with approximately 20m] of acetone . The vial isperiodically shaken to facilitate dissolution of the CA . After dissolution, filter theacetone solution through a fine HPLC syringe filter to remove any undissolvedresidue. (5.0 pm nylon followed by a 0.45 µm if necessary) . Centrifugation at 3000-5000 RPM for 10-20 minutes can be very helpful for samples with high loadings ofsoil and other foreign materials . The filtrate is transferred to a weighed glass vial(wl) and evaporated to dryness (vacuum or air at 60°C) . The vial containing thedried extract is conditioned for 48 hours at 22°C ± 1°C and 60% ± 2% RH and thenweighed (wZ). The amount of CA is estimated from the weight of acetone solublescalculated from the difference w2-wl . A nondegraded sample should be used as acontrol to ensure full recovery of the CA during the process .

6.4 Bulk Volume Determination

Approximately 6ml of 250 µl glass beads are added to a 10 ml graduated measuringcylinder. The exact volume Vb~.& is noted. One half of the beads are removed. Thedried cigarette butts, from the weight determination (6 .3(i)), are carefully added to thecylinder. The removed glass beads are carefully added back to the cylinder whileensuring that the filter sample is centered and that no large air pockets are present .The new volume Vbe,d,sttn is recorded. The bulk volume of the filter is determinedby difference

Vfiltcr = Vbeads+filter - ubeads

The mean and standard deviation of volume measurements is recorded in Table 4.


6.5 Optional: Composite Degradation Value (CDV)The degradation of the cigarette butt can be represented by a composite degradationvalue (CDV). The CDV is based on a weighted average of the % appearance, weight% remaining and volume % remaining of the original cigarette butt. It is defined bythe following formula:

CDV =(a/o Appearance + Weight % Remaining + Volume % Remaining)/3

where % Appearance = (Plugwrap rating + Tipping Rating + Shape Rating + Weight% Remaining Rating + Volume % Remaining Rating)/5

Weight % Remaining Rating and Volume % Remaining Ratings can be determinedfrom Table 5 .

Table 5Weight and Volume % Remaining

Cigarette Butt Weight%Rema1M

Weight %Remabli Ratl

ClgnaiM Butt Volmte%Ramdnl

Volume % Remaining

100-90 100 100-90 10089-80 80 89-70 8079-60 60 69-40 6059-40 40 39-30 4039-20 20 29-15 2019-0 0 14-0 0

6.6 Sample Analysis RecordThe results of the degradability studies are recorded in Table 4 .

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The participating laboratories, location, date initiated and articles tested for the 2nd outdoortrial are given in Table 6 .

Table 6Status of the Outdoor Testing Subgroup

Participating Laboratory Outdoor Location Test Surface Test ArtlcleTrialInltlated Concrete Sol/ CM2 1R4F

Brown and W illiamson 1911198 Macon GA USA X X X XTobacco Cor .,

Japan Tobacco Inc . 9/3198 Yojohama, X X X Xta

Papeteries De Mauduit 8l4/98 Le Mans, X X XFranoe

Eastman Chemical Comp . 14/7/98 Kingsport, TN x X X XA

Filtrona International 8/4/98 Jarrow, En land X X X

The 2"d trial was conducted for 12 months . This allowed the cigarette butts to be exposed toall seasons in each location, which eliminated the potential seasonal bias . Table 7 shows theminimum, average and maximum monthly average weather conditions for all sites . This datawas useful in setting the realistic real world limits for the weatherometer indoor trials .


Table 7Minimum, Average and Maximum Monthly Weather Conditions at All Sites

B&W ITi PDM Eastman FlLMonthl Tem rature C

Minimum 7.8 6 .4 5 .9 4 .4 6Avera e 18.9 16 .4 12 .1 13 .9 10Maximum 29.3 25.8 19 .8 23 .6 15

Monthl Wind S km/hMinimum 6.9 11 .2 8.6 3 .8 7Avera e 9.6 12 .5 11 .4 6 .1 8Maximum 13.5 14 .4 12 .6 10 .1 9

Monthl Humid %RHMinimum 60.5 52.0 61 60 .7 73Aver e 68.7 73.4 78 .5 68 .6 76Maximum 76.2 87.3 91 77 .4 81

Monthl Rainfall mmMinimum 13 .7 0 .0 19 22 .8 24Avera e 87.6 138 .9 65 .2 69 .1 71Maximum 166.4 322.5 151 138.7 147

Monthl Solar Irradianee MJ/mMinimum 264 .5 226.9 53Avera e 495 .6 339.0 - 276Maximum 722.7 420.2 - 525

All of the weather conditions for each site can be seen in Tables 8-23 in Appendix II and withFigures 3-7 showing the average monthly temperature, average monthly wind speed, averagemonthly humidity, cumulative monthly rainfall and cumulative monthly solar irradiance .

Figure 8 shows the butt weight loss for CM2 on concrete. There was reasonable agreementbetween the labs considering the variations in the weather at each site . The initial weight lossobserved at each lab after one month of aging was mainly attributed to the loss of plasticizer.After one year of aging, the typical weight loss for the CM2 on concrete was about 26% .

The weight loss of CM2 on soil can be seen in Figure 9 . The initial weight loss after onemonth was observed and then many of the weights tended to increase . This was attributed tothe increase in soil matter on the filters . It became very difficult to clean the filter properlysince much of the matter was entrained in the tow . For this reason, the microbiological effectof the soil could not be properly studied by loss of weight .

Figures 10 and 11 show the weight loss of the IR3F Kentucky Reference cigarette (KYREF)on concrete and soil . There was good agreement between the labs on concrete with anaverage loss of about 22% after one year. The soil study proved difficult due to the soilmatter within the filter .

The loss in volume for the CM2 on concrete and soil can be seen in Figures 12 and 13 . Anaverage volume loss of 25% for the CM2 on concrete was in good agreement between labsand with the weight loss study. An average volume loss of about 25% also occurred on soil .The volume loss of CM2 on soil seemed to be a better indicator of degradation than weightloss. Reasonable agreement between labs was observed and the results were more in-linewith the concrete results .

Similar loss of volume results were seen with the KYREF as shown in Figures 14 and 15 . Anaverage volume loss of 23% was observed with the KYREF on concrete and soil and there

Task Force on Cigarette Butt Degradability - Final Repon- August 2000 page 29

was good agreement between the labs . Also, more reasonable results were seen with thevolume loss on soil .

The Composite Degradation Value (CDV) was calculated for each cigarette at all labs and ispresented in Table 24 . Photographs of the CM2 and KYREF filter butts, courtesy of theEastman Chemical Company, after 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months of outdoor exposure on concreteand soil are provided in Figures 18-27 in Appendix III . By taking into account the visualratings, more reasonable values for degradation were realized . The weight and volume gainsseen in the soil samples were less dramatic by averaging them with the visual ratings . After12 months, the CDV for CM2 and KYREF on concrete averaged 70% and 74%, respectively .For soil, the CDV values for CM2 and KYREF averaged 77% and 82%, respectively .

Table 24Composite Degradation Values for Each Lab

M nth B&W JTI PDM Eadman FILo Conc So0 Conc Soii Conc Conc Soii Cono

1 98 97 96 89 97 92 89 N/A3 93 83 93 74 95 92 80 92

CM2 6 79 77 80 86 77 89 77 859 N/A 70 76 90 61 84 85 7112 58 64 71 84 64 77 83 801 91 95 96 88 97 93 90 N/A3 91 85 92 75 96 92 82 96

KYREF 6 85 82 79 86 86 92 83 879 72 75 77 91 69 83 79 8412 70 71 75 85 68 76 89 82

The soil analyses for the labs that participated in the soil studies are presented in Tables 25-27. The major difference between the labs was the pH . Unfortunately, since large scatter wasobserved in the weight/volume measurements on soil, the effect of the pH differences couldnot be analyzed . The microbiological data showed B&W and Eastman had average amountsof phospholipid fatty acids in the soils and good prokaryote / eukaryote ratios .

Table 25Soil Composition (%)

B&W JTI EastmanSand 71 .0 78.6 N/ASift 14.2 17.2 N/ACla 14 .1 0.8 N/A

Gravel 0.7 3.4 N/A

Table 26Soil Analysis

ltBW JTI Eastman

Month 0 6 12 0 6 12 0 6 12

pH 5 .48 5.57 N/A 6.47 6.65 6.65 7 .3 7 .7 7 .8

Moisture (%) 9.0 13 .0 N/A 24.9 11 .1 14 .4 5 .9 15 .6 7 .7


Table 27Microbiological Data (nmoles I g dry soil)

Lab Month ~ ~ TotaF PLFAPr~WEou _

uNcallai.nt

B&W 0 49.4 11 .7 60 .1 4 1 .22x106 40.7 9.6 50 .3 4 1.01x100 59.3 9.8 69 .1 6 1.38x100 41.8 6 .7 48 .5 6 9.70x10

Eastman 0 47.1 9.0 56 .2 5 1.12x106 24.7 5 .7 30 .4 4 6.08x106 28.0 5 .0 33 .0 6 6.60x106 23.0 4 .5 27 .5 5 5.49x10

Figures 16 and 17 show the loss in weight of the CM2 and KYREF on concrete as a functionof the solar irradiance. Very good agreement can be seen between the labs . This was the onlyweather parameter that showed good agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study show that when studying filter butts on soil, volume measurementsprovide the better results than weight measurements . There are mixed views with regards toconcrete . Some labs felt the volume measurements were more accurate while others thoughtthe weight measurements were superior. The results gathered here show both techniques tobe reliable .

The CM2 degraded slightly faster than the KYREF after one year. Good consistency betweenlabs was observed for studies conducted on concrete considering the differences in climate .When taking into account the differences in climate, as seen in the solar irradiance vs . weightloss figures, very good agreement was achieved . Overall, the average outdoors weight lossfor 12 months was approximately 26°/u for CM2 and 24°/u for the 1R3F Kentucky referencecigarette butts .

All of the data in this study was used as a framework for the accelerated test . The weatheringconditions set in the indoor trials were derived from real world conditions to make surerealistic values were used .

The results achieved by the outdoor subgroup of the CORESTA CBDTF would not have beenpossible without the excellent participation among the groups . Valued input and promptnessof results from all groups made this report possible .


REFERENCES

1 . Miller, K. "Beach Cleanup Finds Litter's Mounting," USA Today, June 22, 1995 .

2. Buchanan, C.M. et al. "Aerobic Biodegradation of Cellulose Acetate," Journal of AppliedPolymer Science 1993, 47, pp . 1709-1719 .

3. Komarek, R.J . et al. "Biodegradation of Radiolabeled Cellulose Acetate and CellulosePropionate," Journal ofApplied Polymer Science 1993, 50, pp . 1739-1746.

4. D 422-63 "Standard Test Method For Particle-Size Analysis of Soils," Annual Book ofASTM Standards, Vol . 04.08 .

5. ISO 11465:1993(E) "Soil Quality - Determination of Dry Matter and Water Content on aMass Basis - Gravimetric Method."

6. ISO 10390:1994(E) "Soil Quality - Determination of pH."

7. Findlay, R.H.; Dobbs, F .C. "Quantitative Description of Microbial Communities UsingLipid Analysis," Handbook of Methods on Aquatic Microbial Ecology, 1993, Chapter 32,Lewis Publishers, pp . 271 .

8. ISOlFDIS 846:1997(E) "Plastics - Evaluation of the Action Microorganisms," Section8.2 .4.1 - Biological activity of the soil .

9. Houot, S.; Chaussod, R. "Impact of Agricultural Practices on the Size and Activity of theMicrobial Biomass in a Long-Term Field Experiment," Biol. Fertil. Soils 1995, 19, pp. 309-316 .

10. Wu, J . et al . "Measurement of Soil Microbial Biomass C by Fumigation-Exttaction - AnAutomated Procedure," Soil Biol Biochem . 1990, 22(8), pp. 1167-1169 .

Task Fora on Cigsrette Butt Degndability - Final Repnrt - August 2000 page 32

APPENDIX I

Sample Cage

Fiaure 1

0

Jt∎®

., .

it"rY/M/V" wiM r rr~ . .a

1YI .Yrr- .J .Y . .=0 . iiRle .f . .a . . . . ',l

..~iH .~'.'w... ILY WB

~I[u .rAr .. . . .r.ir.at . .'j ;;.. . . .r, .fia .a .rr . . . .B A

. . . .∎∎r.∎, .r xr'nr..Yr-r

IR/1-s . ..r.r /ar .rViI~r,[iL .f[a+ rff R . .ISr:. .alv. . .-un. /'/[ . ..'J,t

~+A .1•silap . .[IPr,r . .Y . . 'Aa . . . .nA

∎f r~ .aYV . . .aI∎[OT 1J / l77

N

G!So 150

(w"


Appendix I

Fi ure 2Test Cages on Soil and Concrete

}31?S'1'COPY

Task Forcc on Cigarette Iiut l Dcgi adzbility - F inal Report - Augux! 2000 page 34

Appendix I• SampYng Schemes for Ciparette Butt Degratletlon Study

T=2 Cum mos .K=.715 (20) 1K=.769 (18) 3

691218

Total

T=3' Cum moe .K=.597 (20) 1K=.635 (18) 3

691218

Total

T=4 Cum mos .K=.715 (20) 1K=.787 (18) 3

691218

Total

T=5' Cum mos.K=.635 (20) 1K=.688 (18) 3

6T=6 9

K=.715 (20) 12K=.769 (18) IS

Total

Cage I Cage 2 Cage 3C1 C2 C3 C4 CS C6 C1 C2 C3 C4 CS C8 C1 C2 C3 C4 CS C6 Totals

T1 C T1 C Tt C C T13 4 3 3 4 3 10 103 3 4 3 3 4 10 104 3 3 4 3 3 10 103 4 3 3 4 3 10 103 3 4 3 3 4 10 104 3 3 4 3 3 10 1020 20 20 20 20 20 60 60

T1 C T2 C T2 T1 C T2 T1 T1 C T2 C T1 T23 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 14 12 143 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 12 14 144 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 14 14 123 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 14 12 143 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 12 14 144 3 3 4 3 3 I 4 3 3 4 3 3 14 14 1220 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 80 80 80

T3 C T3 C T1 T2 T1 T3 C T2 T2 T1 C T1 T2 T33 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 10 10 10 103 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 10 10 10 104 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 10 10 10 103 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 10 10 10 103 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 10 10 10 104 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 10 10 10 1020 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 60 60 60 60

T5 C T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4 TI C T2 T5 T2 T3 T4 T1 T5 C C T1 T2 T3 T4 T53 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 33 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 44 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 33 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 33 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 44 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 320 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

10 10 10 10 10 1010 10 10 10 10 1010 10 10 10 10 1010 10 10 10 10 1010 10 10 10 10 1010 10 10 10 10 1060 60 60 60 60 60

' for T=3 treatments in 1 cage and N=20 butts per compartment, k= .996" for T=S, leave compartments marked'T5' empty

1) MEAN LEVEL AT ANY SAMPLING TIME CAN BE ESTIMATED TO W ITHIN +l- K'STD WITH 95% CONFIDENCESTD = varia8on among all butts in al I compartments at a given sampling timeSTD - (MAX observation - MIN observatlon) 14

2) TOTAL SAMPLE SIZE FOR ANY TREATMENT (no . compartments X butts per compartment) SHOULD BE 50-60 .3) ALL TREATMENTS SHOULD BE PRESENT W ITHIN A SINGLE CAGE IN RANDOM POSITIONING ORDER TO MINIMIZE FALSE BIAS BETW EEN TREATMENTS

Task Force on Cigarette Butt Degmdability - Final Report - August 2000 pegc 35

0808 LL5Z9

APPlNDIX 11T.nl. s

B6W (CM2 on Conernb)

!6W BoYr &WOP tMOnbao(Aver"a

: ~m

q8. Mu8 W.IyM C~. Butt YWwn..MoMA In4tll.ner ~~ ~ PnaN~ll~w~ . M°"" ~ PK I~m.M41Y PX~I+M . VMW/ Vqwl(~ma) dMdd~ TnnpNO•Wti ~ . .HrmlidkY ~r Ilwl t.d) . M..nt.d( R.tlnaR.Iftq RNInB

r mm0 100.0034 .28 100.00i12.81 100 100 100

1 337 .9 13 .5 8 .6 9 70.9 166 .4 0 92.28±2.57 103.36t12.56 100 100 100

2 403.6 12 .8 10.8 5 60.5 150.1 0

3 530.6 11 .7 16.6 0 69.7 117 .1 0 86.20±1 .93 95.8017.09 100 100 1004 651.5 9 .7 20.0 0 72.0 83 .1 0

5 722 .7 10 .4 26.6 0 67.9 48.3 06 693 .B 9 .7 29.3 0 62.8 47.5 0 77.7924.48 78.99t7.09 88 100 100

7 597.6 8 .1 27 .7 0 69.7 101 .9 08 624.6 7 .4 25.7 0 69.2 129.3 09 435 .2 8 .1 22.7 0 76.2 84.3 0 85.01i2.20 83.4533 .74

10 398 .3 8 .9 16.4 0 67.7 13 .7 0

11 287 .1 8 .0 14.4 2 66.7 18 .5 0

12 264 .5 9 .4 7 .8 13 70.6 90.7 0 87.55t3 .23 50.42±7.92 33 66 66

Tablo 9B8W (CM2 on Soil)

. . Total Sotar . . Awrap. . .Avorep ~~« Avr.p. Toql Topl ~.Bu1tWNpht CIp .BuUVOIUmK.T/pplnpPlu9'4'mP .~ . .Month Irr4dMnce M~ BnaolTl~nv

y

l~ M Y (y' Rarno{p1nG (%RwnrnlnY Visual VIPUM Vhudl(MJIn"~

1~ ..8~ T~ .ry. cyoM.

Nu lR.Hd Bnow(Mi.n ± WIM.w1t .d) 1trRqAWp RMft, . . .

. mm mm ..

0 100.00t4.2g 100.00t12.81 100 100 1001 337.9 13 .5 8 .6 9 70.9 168 .4 0 93.59±3.08 95.80t12.02 100 100 1002 403.6 12 .8 10.8 5 60.5 150 .1 0

3 530.8 11 .7 16.6 0 69.7 117 .1 0 79.58t7.58 84.03i7.92 58 100 100

4 651.5 9 .7 20.0 0 72.0 83 .1 05 722.7 10 .4 26.6 0 87.9 48.3 0

6 693.8 9 .7 29.3 0 62.8 47.5 0 77.09t8.85 73.11t5.87 66 100 100

7 597.8 8 .1 27 .7 0 69.7 101 .9 0

8 624.6 7 .4 25.7 0 69.2 129.3 0

9 435.2 8 .1 22.7 0 76.2 84.3 0 72.79±6.44 66.39±1.53 33 100 10010 398 .3 6.9 16.4 0 67.7 13 .7 011 287 .1 8 .0 14.4 2 66.7 18 .5 012 264 .5 9 .4 7 .8 13 70.6 90.7 0 72.38±9.01 54.62±7.14 33 100 66


190C cL4Z9

Table 10B8W (KYREF on Concrete)

Tetal Soln . . N19nMY ot qu BaR Weight Clp. OnMVo/um. Tlpplnp FMpwnp Sh.p.Month Madl.~

MI f S d

~~y

T.m ~FnwaMTlmw

MlN R F INI ~

,~"' ~W (% ~~~Y VUwI VIwM Vi.wl

(NIJm ) m pee P f.yoN~ qrum . IIM9n t~ M..n t M) RMlnp RNkp Rplnyk~ ~

0 100.00t2.52 100.00211 .84 100 100 100

1 337.9 13 .5 8.6 9 70.9 166 .4 0 90.22t1.87 87.9336.80 100 100 1002 403.6 12 .8 10.8 5 60.5 150 .1 03 530.6 11 .7 16.6 0 69.7 117 .1 0 67.DOi2.61 91 .38±6.03 100 100 1004 651 .5 9 .7 20.0 0 72.0 83 .1 05 722.7 10 .4 26.6 0 67.9 48.3 06 693.8 9 .7 29.3 0 62.8 47.5 0 79.83t4.81 82.76t7.27 100 100 1007 597.6 9 .1 27 .7 0 69.7 101 .9 08 624.6 7 .4 25 .7 0 69.2 129 .3 09 435.2 8 .1 22.7 0 76 .2 84.3 0 70.69t2.49 68.79t5.94 68 100 10010 398.3 6 .9 16.4 0 67 .7 13 .7 011 287.1 8 .0 14.4 2 66 .7 18 .5 0

12 264.5 9 .4 7.8 13 70 .6 90.7 0 72.86i3.19 61 .21±2.73 68 100 100

Table 11B3W (KYREF on Soll)

rT~ ~ Nu . ~

Total~ W ~ nC . .. FB ~Month hr.dlan. Mon1h11NY F~ Yo y . Montldy N thly %Rinid R mNnMpit W V4ud ~ WaW, .CF

(NWm'')IndSp.od. . Tormp.r.tur. ~~ HumVdNy RaM NINI SnowMl M..n *W) MNnt ad) Wtkq Ratkp Rn6np

. . .

kmm mm mm0 100.00t2.52 100.00l11 .64 100 100 1001 337.9 13 .5 8 .6 9 70.9 166 .4 0 92.09t1.32 93.10±8.90 100 100 1002 403.6 12 .8 10.8 5 60.6 150 .1 0

3 530.6 11 .7 16.6 0 69.7 117 .1 0 80.67±4.30 52.76t10.12 100 100 1004 651 .5 9.7 20.0 0 72.0 83 .1 05 722.7 10 .4 26.6 0 67.9 48.3 06 693.8 9.7 29.3 0 62.8 47.5 0 78.3434.05 80.17t4.16 100 100 1007 597.6 8.1 27.7 0 69.7 101 .9 08 624.6 7.4 25.7 0 69.2 129 .3 09 435.2 8.1 22.7 0 76.2 84.3 0 73.72±3.92 89.74t4.80 66 100 10010 398.3 6.9 16.4 0 67.7 13 .7 011 287 .1 8.0 14.4 2 66.7 18 .5 012 264.5 9.4 7.8 13 70.6 90.7 0 70.63±6.08 65.52±4.45 66 100 100


Z80C LL9ZS

Tawa 12JTI (CM2 on Conenrb)

TeW Snl.r ~ ~ Ipnnb.r d ~ M~Y Ma~y Clp;../LRt WN9M ~~ ~ Tlppiq PluOwnp SMp4Month 1~ IndSp.W Tampn.Wn ~ NwMdlb R~NN~II tnawN9 Remaining

(%Msd) ~I~M~ RMInY Ran9 R.tlnY

0 100.00±3 .19 100.00l2.07 100 100 100

1 384.8 14.4 10.7 0 67.3 185.5 0 89.92±2.86 99.41±2 .62 100 100 100

2 394.2 14.0 18.4 0 81 .9 115.5 0

3 420.2 12.6 19.7 0 80.7 228.0 0 85.33t2.57 97.84±2 .11 100 100 100

4 407.2 11 .5 23 .4 0 85.4 156.5 05 377 .4 11 .2 24 .4 0 87.3 279.0 0

6 348 .2 11 .5 25 .8 0 85.5 155.5 0 77.65±4.98 87.06±7 .13 66 66 100

7 302.7 13.7 23 .4 0 84.4 322.5 0

8 263 .5 13.0 18 .1 0 76.6 94.5 09 226 .9 12.6 11 .5 0 65.6 63.0 0 75.85t3.78 78.82t7 .61 68 66 100

10 267.9 11 .5 7.7 1 55.9 0 .0 011 317 .8 11 .5 6.4 2 52.0 20.5 0

12 357 .4 13.0 7.4 2 58.5 66.0 0 75.73±3 .35 78.2725 .68 33 33 100

TaW.13dT1 (CM2 on Soil)

TMonfhlyW Montltly ~. ~~ MaYthly

TOWMaHhly TotalMrnthly ~ BQ YpIW9. (% . .. n w~N M.

~Month lrradl .ne.(M~Im~ MMip..d T.mporaWre .

~

'aHwMd6Y R.lnhtn inwRal R.nWttNpMpn

M..n tad)

y twiVisualItaW+O RWnO 1i.6n9

mm rmm adi0 100.00t3.19 100.00t2.07 100 100100

1 384.8 14.4 10.7 0 67.3 165 .5 0 87.2133.84 96.76t1 .85 66 66 1002 394.2 14.0 18.4 0 81 .9 115.5 0

3 420.2 12.6 19.7 0 80.7 228.0 0 75.7431 .49 85.69±2 .45 33 33 100

4 407.2 11 .5 23 .4 0 85.4 156.5 0

5 377.4 11 .2 24 .4 0 87.3 279.0 06 348 .2 11 .5 25.8 0 85.5 155.5 0 108.19t7.45 82.06t3 .61 33 33 1007 302 .7 13.7 23 .4 0 84.4 322.5 08 263 .5 13.0 18 .1 0 76.8 94.5 0

9 226 .9 12.6 11 .5 0 65.6 63.0 0 121 .99i9.51 78.73±4 .34 0-33 0-33 100

10 267 .9 11 .5 7.7 1 55.9 0 .0 011 317 .8 11 .5 6.4 2 52.0 20.5 012 357 .4 13.0 7.4 2 58.5 66.0 0 118.30±8 .57 78.96t3 .31 0-33 0-33 100


E80£ LLSZS

T.b1.14JTf (KYREF on Concr.t.)

MonthMr saaN~d

~"Is 'MoehM1NV MaMMy /wmwr aF.or[1J1'Mw

An"wMontlty cq sun w.qm

(!L RwnNnlnp : Tppno nwywr.n snq .YqYd VIwY Vbwl

~Jm j 1~~ T~~~~ 6yd.. N I~ Mwn 3~~M~

RMiq RWiq RMkq

mememe

.

0 100.OOt2 .87 100.0031 .14 100 100 1001 384 .8 14 .4 10.7 0 67.3 165.5 0 90.92±1 .30 98.30±1 .67 100 100 1002 394.2 14 .0 18.4 0 81 .9 115.5 03 420.2 12 .6 19.7 0 80 .7 228.0 0 86.40±1 .85 94.09±3.11 100 100 1004 407.2 11 .5 23.4 0 85.4 156.5 05 377.4 11 .2 24.4 0 87 .3 279.0 08 348.2 11 .5 25.8 0 85 .5 155.5 0 78.8431 .70 84.2733.15 66 66 1007 302.7 13.7 23.4 0 84.4 322.5 08 263.5 13 .0 18.1 0 76.8 94.5 09 226.9 12 .6 11 .5 D 65.6 63.0 0 77.40t2.87 78.56t4.51 66 66 10010 267.9 11 .5 7 .7 1 55.9 0 .0 011 3t7.8 11 .5 6 .4 2 52.0 20.5 0

12 357.4 13 .0 7.4 2 58.5 66.0 0 75.5132.66 74.8532.88 66 88 100

Tabl.15JTI (KYREF on Soil)

T~ NUm ..~

C 'M . .~ n ~~M9M6 hrMlanqMnntMylN .M

~ ~F Monthly MaMMy Monthly Valu~IXMnNnIn9 VNUA I VIwNNtMJm41 hN18pMd TomporaYlrp . ~~ Humldky /lNnfall 8newfM M..n 3 .d) RrnNn~ MNn ~ynO RMIn9 ~b^9

~~0 mMMMMMMM 100.00±2.87 t00.00t1 .14 100 100 f001 384.8 14.4 10.7 0 67.3 165.5 0 87.61t4.06 94.99t3 .13 88 66 1002 394 .2 14 .0 18.4 0 81.9 115.5 03 420 .2 12 .6 19.7 0 80.7 226.0 0 77.97±3.33 85.2752 .19 33 33 1004 407.2 11 .5 23.4 0 85.4 156.5 05 377 .4 11 .2 24.4 0 87.3 279.0 06 348 .2 11 .5 25.8 0 85.6 155.5 0 103.4636.21 85.47t4 .20 33 33 1007 302.7 13.7 23.4 0 84.4 322.5 08 263 .5 13 .0 18.1 0 76.8 94.5 09 226 .9 12 .6 11 .5 0 65.6 63.0 0 121 .11±8.41 82.5734 .31 33 33 10010 267.9 11 .5 7 .7 1 55.9 0.0 011 317 .8 11 .5 6 .4 2 52.0 20.5 012 357 .4 13 .0 7 .4 2 58.5 66.0 0 111 .57±8.58 80.76±2 .37 0-33 0-33 100


b60C LL9Z9

TaW.18Papabrl.. Do M .uduN (CM2 on Coner.t.)

M th TaM1SOhr MenqdyW MonSdy Num9rraF~~ Ma~ry MonIMY M~Cq..Syl1MYNWt1 vow~.1.~(7LNMnainMW

T1PPMO ~P sN.p.Ybwl vlwd vMWIon

Flan. IndSPnd T.mP~ ~ HMMft RabWH SnsNfM Man tad) . ftma" ft=~Y R S R S

0 100±0 100i0 100 100 1001 84 13 .3 10.0 2 83 151 0 93±1 .53 10030 97 100 100

2 252 11 .9 16.2 0 65 33 0

3 192 11 .5 17.3 0 70 51 0 91t2.01 9736.96 90 100 100

4 153 11 .9 18 .1 0 71 36 0

5 295 9.0 19.8 0 61 19 0

6 153 12 .2 16.9 0 79 112 0 71±6.8 97±6.96 32 50 66

7 54 11.9 12.6 0 87 99 0

8 100 8.6 5 .9 11 86 35 0

9 49 11 .2 5 .9 9 91 100 0 62±3.57 79±4 0 0 66

10 79 12.6 7 .0 5 86 69 10

11 66 11 .2 6 .0 9 83 47 012 133 11 .5 9 .1 3 80 30 0 6g33.08 79±3.06 13 13 66

Tabl.17Pap.t.rlas Do Maudult (KYREF on Conor.b)

. ToOM Solarp'VWWMonM1yW

AVWWG . .MontMy ... NumWrol Avonqa

M~y

T

~~`

obl

M~m~Cip.CultYWIBM ' Butt

Voluma (% 7fPPinO Pkqwnp ~MMa1tlM. Nqu1s Ind Sp..d TRnPSr.tun Pt..eMthaw~s HumWky R.In4i Snowf.ll C~ MmdN^CM~ t~ Ramalnln8 Mpn Vbwl~ VMual Vbwl~R~Q

mm tW

0 100±0 100t0 100 100 100

1 84 13.3 10.0 2 83 151 0 91±2.62 99±3.19 100 100 100

2 252 11 .9 16.2 0 65 33 0

3 192 11 .5 17.3 0 70 51 0 90.0,64 98±4.3 97 100 1004 153 11 .9 18.1 0 71 36 0

5 295 9.0 19.8 0 61 19 0

6 153 12.2 16.9 0 79 112 0 81±2.53 95±5.54 89 89 90

7 54 11.9 12.6 0 87 99 0

8 100 8.6 5 .9 11 86 35 0

9 49 11 .2 5 .9 9 91 100 0 71±2.31 8018.33 23 46 86

10 79 12.6 7 .0 5 86 69 10

11 66 11 .2 6.0 9 83 47 0

12 133 11 .5 9.1 3 80 30 0 75±3.15 82±7.71 17 17 68

Task Fome on Cigarette Butt Degradability - Final Report - August 2000 page 40

9008 cL9a9

TaM.18Eastman (CM2 on Concrata)

Month TBmemana MO*4v* ik Y ~ Mantf~l!' MWii(ilY ~ i1rR~kMYlslnM~ip ~ N 1Mtai ~ V~(W/ma1 kW 6p..d Tanti~ '. CYda' . Nw~idflY R~ MMn * W)

0

'a ~ 1tNn1G. tad .

o 100.00 100.00 100 100 1001 16.3 4 .6 23.6 0 77.4 49.7 94.89±2.74 86.152/ .67 100 100 t002 20.3 4 .2 23.5 0 69.6 54.33 19 .6 4 .2 22.0 0 64.2 22.8 88.60t2 .09 90.59t2.36 100 100 1004 18.0 3 .8 14.3 3 68 .1 42 .65 13 .4 5 .0 8 .7 10 71 .1 36 .66 10 .4 5 .3 5 .3 17 77.4 138.7 < 50 64.50t2 .50 93.73±2.40 55 100 1007 10 .1 8 .3 4 .4 19 72.8 111 .7 < 508 13.2 7 .0 4 .6 19 69.7 73.9 <5p9 14.8 9 .3 5 .9 21 60.7 67.0 81.6432 .37 93.47±3 .44 33 68 10010 17 .1 10.1 14 .6 1 62 .2 62.711 20.7 6 .4 17 .4 0 63.8 60.212 5.3 22.3 0 66.2 109.1 77.8952 .40 83.80t2 .56 33 66 100

Ta61a 19Eastman (CM2 on Soll)

TAYNyoaMWMIYW

...

MMap~ Total . ToW

~

.

~ 8

. ' .

PnMonth MniBilw(W/m°l

Ind a1M•d T. NamPar.Wn F~Th9w.~

HumldBy . RaYAd Snowfa ll ~~RanaMln9 A~an:M dYNu9/ Vlwal Visual

". ~ .an t s ) * qNlqp: R.Bnp Ra11Gty .

0 100.00 100.00 100 100 1001 16.3 4.6 23.6 0 77.4 49.7 85.90t2.12 93.1332 .96 85 100 1002 20.3 4.2 23.5 0 69.6 54.33 19.6 4.2 22.0 0 64.2 22.8 79.31±4.83 88.4152 .84 55 77 1004 18.0 3.8 14.3 3 68.1 42.65 13 .4 5.0 8.7 10 71 .1 36.66 10 .4 5.3 5.3 17 77.4 138.7 < 50 82.3636.65 83.36t2.01 33 33 1007 10.1 8.3 4.4 19 72.8 111 .7 < 508 13 .2 7.0 4 .6 19 69.7 73.9 < 509 14 .8 9.3 5.9 21 80.7 67.0 104.39±7.16 90.57t2 .10 0 0 10010 17 .1 10 .1 14.6 1 62.2 82.711 20.7 6.4 17.4 0 63.8 60.212 5.3 22.3 0 66.2 109.1 111 .8438.93 79.82t2 .26 0 0 100

Task Fome on Cigarette Butt Degradability - Final Report - August 2000 page 41

9806 LL9Z9

Table 20Eastman (KYREF on Coner .E.)

NMI"TeiWAelsr M~ MenilMy ~ X0~r ~r Me~y ~~ YOM.~{% ~ ~ VtWN show~ Ind 9PMtl T.mp«.lan

O W ~ MMn t sd) ~~ RaIMtY IENYIp /S.Nt

assassass

y g .

0 100.00 100.00 100 100 100

1 16 .3 4 .6 23.6 0 77.4 49.7 93.25t2 .41 89.41±2 .19 100 100 1002 20 .3 4 .2 23.5 0 69.6 54.33 19 .6 4 .2 22.0 0 64 .2 22.8 91.40±1 .74 87 .95±1 .59 100 100 1004 18 .0 3 .8 14.3 3 68.1 42.65 13 .4 5 .0 8 .7 10 71 .1 36.68 10 .4 5 .3 5.3 17 77 .4 138.7 < 50 87.40t2.00 92.05±4 .09 100 100 100

7 10 .1 8 .3 4 .4 19 72 .8 111 .7 < 508 13 .2 7 .0 4 .6 19 69 .7 73.9 < 509 14 .8 9 .3 5 .9 21 60.7 67.0 83.13±2 .29 88.30±2.04 55 75 100

10 17 .1 10.1 14.6 1 62 .2 62.711 20 .7 8 .4 17.4 0 83 .8 60.2

12 5.3 22.3 0 66 .2 109.1 77.95±1 .92 81 .52t2 .27 33 66 100

Ta61.21Eastman (KYREF on 8oll)

MNu . . ~ y 1y . MoMh

lY 0' eO Va. UQWMP

Monlh Itr~aaas(Wh+1)

~ ~ . TM~~

ONG

. . .. .qvlap . Rartialnlnp MNn

MMn t .mVNWI . .d"

Vlwal VaawlR.qn R.W. iY , . ., mm ., .#W R1 S . . p q

0 100.00 100.00 100 100 1001 18.3 4 .6 23.6 0 77.4 49.7 88.09t3.45 91 .92t2 .47 65 100 100

2 20 .3 4 .2 23.5 0 69.6 54 .33 19 .8 4 .2 22.0 0 64.2 22 .8 85.47±4.15 86.25t227 45 75 1004 18 .0 3 .8 14.3 3 68.1 42 .65 13 .4 5 .0 8 .7 10 71 .1 36 .6

6 10 .4 5 .3 5 .3 17 77.4 138.7 <50 95.33±3 .57 85.89t1A5 33 33 1007 10.1 8 .3 4 .4 19 72.8 111 .7 <508 13 .2 7 .0 4 .8 19 89.7 73.9 < 5p9 14 .8 9 .3 5 .9 21 60.7 67 .0 101.20t5.97 80.57t2 .14 0 0 10010 17 .1 10 .1 14.6 1 62.2 62.711 20 .7 6.4 17.4 0 83.8 60.212 5.3 22.3 0 66.2 109.1 128.62t14.28 81 .36±2 .91 0 0 100


t906 tLSZs

T.bla 22Flltrona (CM2 on ConenNa)

SolerI

Awrp~MoMhh~

Aw~paMonlhty Hu

Aw~pBMoM111Y

ToWMa~r ~ qp,BItYYNpM TlppleY PkqwerP ihapa

Month natfian c. I~SPM6 T.mPwaWt.F~ ~MBMdNY ~~

.(81, R.naMMy ~.~n VIwY 1tMW Yhual

. MNn 3sd1 RMInY liI n0 RMktiD *94

0 100 100 100 100 1001 338 9 8 3 75 102 N/A2 470 7 12 0 76 86 N/A3 428 7 13 0 76 99 N/A 89t0.0033 92±0 .06 100 100 1004 525 7 15 0 75 71 N/A5 379 8 15 0 75 27 N/A6 320 7 14 0 73 147 N/A 60t0.0048 84t0.046 100 100 1007 262 9 10 0 75 83 N/A8 149 7 6 2 81 79 N/A9 53 7 6 3 79 38 N/A 79t6.0060 631,0 .038 66 100 6610 63 8 6 2 76 24 N/A11 126 9 6 4 76 25 N/A12 196 8 7 0 75 78 N/A 80±0.0058 81±0.046 66 100 66

Table 23Flltrona (KYREF on Concrete)

Tot•1 iolar `i ~ ~ Mwnb.r o1 . MonC~Ny .MoTotal~hty TowNPnIhA' Clµ &Re WNpM Voluma (%

. .. T(P/inG. Ph~p~rnp .'~hapa

Monlh .lmid4la~(MJm ) IndlMb TamPM+wh ~~"..CYc le,

HumWky Ralnfallm

~JlnonfN (%RwnNnkq R.malnlnpMwn MMpM NsYU VNYY

M..n t W) ~i ~9% m ,_. t_ .0 100 100 100 100 100

1 338 9 8 3 75 102 N/A2 470 7 12 0 76 86 N/A3 428 7 13 0 76 99 N/A 90t0.0048 97±0.057 100 100 1004 525 7 15 0 75 71 N/A5 379 8 15 0 75 27 N/A6 320 7 14 0 73 147 N/A 87±0.0061 63i0.023 100 100 1007 262 9 10 0 75 83 N/A8 149 7 6 2 81 79 N!A9 53 7 6 3 79 36 N/A 88i0.0048 80±0.030 88 100 10010 63 8 6 2 76 24 N/A11 126 9 6 4 76 25 N/A12 196 8 7 0 75 78 N/A 83±0.0062 79±0.010 66 100 100


9908 cLs39

Fi¢nre 3Average Monthly Temperature ('C)

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mo/116

0 9 10 11

F5 re 4Average Monthly Wind Speed (®/h)

8 .0

.0

12

tnNtnNV

WTask Force on Cigarette Butt Degradability - Final Report - August 2000 page 44 0tD

(ID

Fe.are 5Average Monthly Humidity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Month

6 9 10 11

F7¢ure 6Cumulative Monthly Rainfsll (mm)

EE 1000

a 690 i

a'

600

400

0

1600

1600 1

1400 1

1200

200

1 2 3 4 5 0 9

12


FSeore 7Cumulative Monthly Solar Irr.diance (MJ/m)

7000

6000

„- 5000Ei~a 4000cSa~ 3000

"' 2000

1000

01

100

2 3 4 5 6 7

Month

B 9

FigRtt $% Initial Butt Weight CM2 Concrete

10 11 12

B&W

~JTJ

~POM

~ Eastman-FIL

70

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

trNtTVvw

Task Force on Cigarette Butt Degradability - Final Report - August 2000 page 46 m1

Fi re 9% lnitisl Butt Weight CM2 SoB

B&WJT1

~Easnan ,

0 1 2 3 4 0 05 6 7

Month

100

95

90

Fi¢ure 10% Initial Butt Weight KYREF Concrete

+ BdW- JTI- PDM 'rt Eatrnan I-FIL

B0

75

70

B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Month

B 9 10 11 12

Task Force on Cigarette Butt Depadabiliry - Final Report - Augus12000 page 47

FieurgI I% Initial Bott Weight KYREF Soil

.BaW-t Jrl-Ea>aaw

Month

Fienre 12% Initial Batt Volume CM2 Concrete

- BBW+JTI- PDMy-Eas4nan

70

60

0 2 4 6

Month

8 10

FFIL

12

Task Force oa Cigarette Bun Degrada6ility - Final Repon-Auguu 2000 page 48

Fie.re 13% Initial Butt Volume CM2 Soil

90

60

50

100

0 2 3 4 0 9 10 11 125 6 7

f'.lollnl

Fieurel4% Initial Butt Volume KYREF Coacrete

aX

Task Fofa on Cigarette Butt Degradability - Final Report - August 2000

-e,ahna.,

t'nNtnvV

W a

(D-N

Fi ure 1% Initial Butt Volume KYREF Soil

0 1 2 3 4 8 9 10 11 125 6 7

MoMA

re16% Initlal Butt Weight CM2 Concrete Versua Solar Irradiance

- 88W

~JTI

- FIL

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Solar Radianu (MJIm')

5000 6000


Fieare 17% Initial Butt Weight ICYREF Concrete Veraua Solar Irradiance

~BSW~ JTI* FIL

Solar Radiance (AAJlm2)

thNwV-4

Task Face on Cigarette Butt Degladability - Final Report - August 2000 page 51 pmt7)

APPENDIX III

Fi¢ure 18Cigarette Butts After I Month Outdoors on Concrete

CM2 KYREF

WTask Force on Cigarette Butt negradability - Final Report - August 2000 page 52 0

(O4

Fiaure 19Cigarette Butts After 1 Month Outdoors on Soil

CM2 KYREF

Task Force on Cigarette Butt Degradabilitv-Final Report - August 2000 page 53

Figure 20Cigarette Butts After 3 Months Outdoors on Concrete

CM2 KYREF

Task Force on Cigarette Butt Degradability- Final Report - .August 2000 page 54

Figure 21Cigarette Butts After 3 Months Outdoors on Soil

CM2 KYREF

W

Task Force on Cigarette Butt Degradability - Final Report - August 2000 page 55 O0

Fiaure 22Cigarette Butts After 6 Months Outdoors on Concrete

CM2 KYREF

Task Force on Cigarette Butt Uegradability- Final Report - August 2000 page 56


CM2 KYREF


Fi2ure 24Cigarette Butts After 9 Months Outdoors on Concrete

CM2

:."

KYREF

Task Force on Cigarette Butt Degradabilfty- Final Repon - August 2000 page 58

Fieure 25Cigarette Butts After 9 Months Outdoors on Soil

Cb42

I;'[ 'll i

KYREF

Task Force on C igarcttc Bua Dcgradabi hty - F inal Report - Angust 2000 page ~ 9

Fiaure 26Cigarette Butts After 12 Months Outdoors on Concrete

CM2 KYREF

Task Fose on (.'ie_arettc Butt Degradability- Final Report - August 2000 page 60


CM2 KYREF

LH

TusA Force on ('ieareve Rutt Degrudu6ilitc - Final Rcpurt - Augtut 2000 page 61

cigarette butt degradability task force final report · sampling schemes for cigarette butt...

Documents