Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jun 13;18(6):e0287094. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287094

Soil elemental changes during human decomposition

Lois S Taylor 1,*, Adrian Gonzalez 2, Michael E Essington 1, Scott C Lenaghan 3, C Neal Stewart 4, Amy Z Mundorff 5, Dawnie W Steadman 5, Jennifer M DeBruyn 1,*
Editor: Victoria E Gibbon6
PMCID: PMC10263346  PMID: 37310961

Abstract

Mammalian decomposition provides pulses of organic matter to the local ecosystem creating ephemeral hotspots of nutrient cycling. While changes to soil biogeochemistry in these hotspots have been described for C and N, patterns associated with deposition and cycling of other elements have not received the same attention. The goal of our study was to evaluate temporal changes to a broad suite of dissolved elements in soils impacted by human decomposition on the soil surface including: 1) abundant mineral elements in the human body (K, Na, S, P, Ca, and Mg), 2) trace elements in the human body (Fe, Mn, Se, Zn, Cu, Co, and B), and 3) Al which is transient in the human body but common in soils. We performed a four-month human decomposition trial at the University of Tennessee Anthropology Research Facility and quantified elemental concentrations dissolved in the soil solution, targeting the mobile and bioavailable fraction. We identified three groups of elements based on their temporal patterns. Group 1 elements appeared to be cadaver-derived (Na, K, P, S) and their persistence in soil varied based upon soluble organic forms (P), the dynamics of the soil exchange complex (Na, K), and gradual releases attributable to microbial degradation (S). Group 2 elements (Ca, Mg, Mn, Se, B) included three elements that have greater concentrations in soil than would be expected based on cadaver inputs alone, suggesting that these elements partially originate from the soil exchange (Ca, Mg), or are solubilized as a result of soil acidification (Mn). Group 3 elements (Fe, Cu, Zn, Co, Al) increased late in the decomposition process, suggesting a gradual solubilization from soil minerals under acidic pH conditions. This work presents a detailed longitudinal characterization of changes in dissolved soil elements during human decomposition furthering our understanding of elemental deposition and cycling in these environments.

Introduction

Mammalian decomposition is a dynamic process that provides pulses of organic matter to the local ecosystem. These nutrient pulses are dispersed throughout the wider ecosystem in a variety of ways: into the atmosphere via gaseous emissions (including volatile organic compounds, or VOCs) [1], into insects and scavengers which may move materials over large distances [24], and into the soil creating ephemeral hotspots of enhanced nutrient cycling and microbial activity [58]. Changes to soil biogeochemistry in these hotspots have been described, including pH [520], electrical conductivity (EC) [6,7,10,12,13,15,17,20,21], organic and inorganic carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) speciation and cycling [515,1719,2128], and soil oxygen [7]. However, patterns associated with the deposition and cycling of elements other than C and N have not been explored with the same degree of detail.

The most abundant elements in the human body are oxygen (O), carbon (C), hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), calcium (Ca), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), sulfur (S), sodium (Na), chloride (the mineral ion of chlorine), and magnesium (Mg), together comprising greater than 99% of total body mass [29]. Based on elemental proportions, it is estimated that a 70 kg human is composed of between 1 and 38.6 kg each of O, C, H, and N, and that the remaining mineral elements are found in abundances of less than 1 kg each, all of which could theoretically be transferred to the soil assuming no losses to atmosphere, insect activity, or scavenging. H and O are distributed throughout decomposition fluid, VOCs, and water. Of the remaining elements, total C and N, their organic and inorganic fractions, and their transformation products are the most commonly documented for surface decomposition [5,715,1719,2128]. This is followed by the plant nutrients P [5,10,12,13,1519,21,22,2426,28] and K [9,10,1618,22,25,28,30], the latter of which is also an exchangeable soil cation. In contrast, soil changes of other exchangeable cations, Ca, Na, and Mg, have received only general characterization [9,10,16,17,25,26,28,30], and while the presence of S and chloride have been noted, their soil concentration changes are poorly described [9,10,25]. To our knowledge other cadaver-derived elements have received no attention. Currently, the most detailed longitudinal characterizations of elemental pools have been performed using pigs rather than humans [16,18,19,21]. While frequently used as human surrogates, there are differences between pig and human tissue composition [31], decomposition patterns [8,32,33], and soil chemistry responses, particularly with respect to pH [8,24] (but see [5,811,14,1620]). Furthermore, the collective surface decomposition literature spans a diversity of soil types, each having unique chemistry, and therefore complicating interpretation of ultimate availability of resource pools for plant uptake and microbial cycling. Our study was motivated by the lack of information regarding how elemental pools change during human decomposition, in order to provide insight into macro- and micronutrient cycling during decomposition.

The goal of our study was to evaluate temporal changes to a broad suite of elements in soil solutions impacted by surface decomposition of whole human remains: 1) abundant mineral elements in the human body (K, Na, S, P, Ca, and Mg), 2) elements found in trace abundances in the human body (Fe, Mn, Se, Zn, Cu, Co, and B), and 3) Al which is largely transient in the human body but common in soils [34]. The greatest and least abundant of these commonly occurring mineral elements in a 70 kg living human body could ultimately provide up to 1 kg (Ca) and 14 g (Mg), respectively, to the soil during decomposition, assuming no losses. Based upon this potentially substantial soil augmentation, we hypothesized that we would observe significant increases in these elements in decomposition-impacted soils relative to control soils unimpacted by decomposition, and that these changes would yield different temporal patterns. During tissue decomposition monovalent cations are lost first, followed by N and S derived from soft tissues, and finally P, Mg, and Ca derived from nucleic acids and recalcitrant tissues including bone [25]. Some of these elements derived from the breakdown of tissues are also exchangeable base cations in soil (i.e., K+, Na+, Mg2+, and Ca2+) and others have pH-dependent solubility in soil (i.e., Fe, Mn, Se, Zn, Cu, Co, and B), indicating that changes in the soil chemical environment during decomposition may affect dissolved pools. To test our hypotheses, we performed a four-month human decomposition trial at the University of Tennessee Anthropology Research Facility and quantified elemental concentrations dissolved in the soil solution, with the intention of targeting the mobile (exchangeable) and bioavailable fraction. This work presents a detailed longitudinal characterization of changes in soil elemental profiles during human decomposition furthering our understanding of nutrient deposition and cycling in these environments. Assessing time-resolved changes to multiple elemental pools may have utility both ecologically and forensically by identifying biogeochemical cycling pathways other than C and N as well as potentially identifying markers of decomposition progression leading to better estimates of the postmortem interval (PMI). The soil solution phase is easily extracted and analyzed relative to other soil components, potentially making it a practical option for forensic use.

Materials and methods

Experimental site

This study was conducted at the University of Tennessee Anthropology Research Facility (ARF), Knoxville, TN, United States (35° 56’ 28” N, 83° 56’ 25” W). The ARF is part of the University of Tennessee Forensic Anthropology Center (FAC) and was the first established outdoor human decomposition laboratory [35]. The facility is situated on a ridgeline overlooking the Tennessee River and consists of temperate mixed deciduous forest with a Köppen climate classification of Cfa (humid subtropical). Soils are a mixture of Loyston-Talbott-Rock outcrop (LtD) and Coghill-Corryton (CcD) complexes and are classified as Lithic and Typic Hapludalfs and Typic Hapludults that are broadly composed of clayey residuum derived from weathered limestone. Soil profiles typically consist of silty clay loam and channery clay that extend to a lithic bedrock. These soils are frequently found in Southern Appalachian Mountain ridges and slopes [36,37].

Site layout and donor placement

Three deceased human subjects (donors) were used in this study, which were donations to the FAC (https://fac.utk.edu/body-donation/) specifically for the purposes of decomposition research. No living human subjects were involved, and therefore this study was exempt from review by the University of Tennessee Institutional Review Board. No preferences were made for sex, ancestry, age, or height. Donors had not been autopsied nor were observed to have sustained physical trauma that might create artificial points of ingress for insects, microbes, or scavengers. As per all research at the Anthropology Research Facility, a research request was submitted to the FAC that detailed the research question, scope, methods and duration of work at the Facility. The request was reviewed and approved by the Director and a panel of senior staff of the FAC. The FAC does not issue formal permits beyond the written approval of the work to commence.

One female and two male donors (n = 3) within a weight range of 69.9 to 93.9 kg were accepted for this study (1). Donors were immediately frozen after intake to allow for simultaneous placement at the field site. Donors were placed at the study site unclothed, supine, and in direct contact with the soil surface to allow access to insects and scavengers, and were spaced across the facility. Data were collected from 9 April 2021 through 9 August 2021 (122 days) and consisted of local environmental data and soil samples for soil chemistry.

Table 1. Human donor data.

Donor ID Sex Age Weight (kg) Cause of death
D3_SPOT1_J Male 66 73.0 Natural
D3_SPOT2_H Male 62 93.9 Natural
D3_SPOT3_F Female 69 69.9 Natural

Data table for donors enrolled in the study. Donor study ID, sex, age, weight (kg), and cause of death are shown.

Local ambient temperature data were collected from the Knoxville Municipal Tyson McGhee Airport (KTYS) Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS). Accumulated degree hours (ADH) were determined by cumulative sums of hourly temperature data. Accumulated degree days Degree Days (ADD) were determined by cumulative sums of daily temperature means. TYS is located at a similar elevation and 16 km south of the study site.

Sample collection

Soil samples were taken at 27 time points throughout the decomposition process (Table 2). Pending weather, samples were taken two to three times per week for the first two months, weekly for three weeks, and every two weeks thereafter. Soil sampling was performed using a 1.9-cm diameter soil auger to remove five 15-cm cores from impacted soils immediately adjacent to the donors as well as from control plots located at least 2 m away and upslope from each donor. The selection of control sites 2 m away was to ensure they were not impacted by human decomposition products; this was based on previous research demonstrating limited (< 1 m) lateral transport of decomposition products through soil [6,10,24]. The five cores from each site were composited and stored at 4°C. Soil samples were processed for pH, EC, and gravimetric moisture within 48 hours. A subsample of soils was frozen at -80°C for elemental analysis.

Table 2. Donor sampling time points.

Study
Day
Date
(D-M-Y)
ADH
ambient

ADD
0 9 April 2021 0 0
3 12 April 2021 1305 54.4
5 14 April 2021 2143 89.3
7 16 April 2021 2805 116.9
10 19 April 2021 3757 156.5
14 23 April 2021 4751 198
17 26 April 2021 5577 232.4
19 28 April 2021 6570 273.7
21 30 April 2021 7586 316.1
28 7 May 2021 10547 439.4
33 12 May 2021 12394 516.4
35 14 May 2021 12994 541.4
38 17 May 2021 14260 594.2
40 19 May 2021 15257 635.7
42 21 May 2021 16336 680.7
45 24 May 2021 18054 752.3
47 26 May 2021 19288 803.7
49 28 May 2021 20522 855.1
54 2 June 2021 22703 945.9
56 4 June 2021 23694 987.2
61 9 June 2021 26588 1107.8
66 14 June 2021 29519 1230
75 23 June 2021 34715 1446.4
89 7 July 2021 43101 1795.9
103 21 July 2021 51430 2142.9
117 4 August 2021 60309 2512.9
122 9 August 2021 63234 2634.8

Data show date of sampling, accumulated degree hours (ADH) calculated from hourly ambient air temperatures, and accumulated degree days (ADD) calculated from daily mean temperatures.

Soil physical analyses

In order to verify similarity of soil texture between experimental sites, particle size analysis (PSA) was performed on homogenized control soils from each site. Soils were air-dried and sieved using 2 mm sieves. Following the removal of organic matter, PSA was performed using a Malvern Mastersizer 3000 laser particle size diffractor. Clay mineralogy was performed on soils sourced from a section of the ARF not previously exposed to decomposition. Analysis of clay mineralogy was conducted according to methods outlined in Soukup et al. (2008) [38] and x-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis. Briefly, soil carbonates and exchangeable divalent cations were removed by repeated centrifuge washings of soil with a 1M pH 5 Na acetate buffer. Organic matter and Mn oxides were then removed by repeated additions of 30% H2O2 at 80°C, followed by a four-hour digestion also at 80°C. Fe oxides were then removed by the additions of 0.3M Na citrate and 1M Na bicarbonate, followed by the addition of Na dithionite at 75°C. Soils were then Na-saturated, and particles < 2μm (clay fraction) were isolated using Stoke’s Law sedimentation. The clay fraction was saturated with K, Mg, and Mg-glycol and three slides were prepared for XRD: K-saturated at room temperature, Mg-saturated, and Mg-glycol-saturated. Additional K-saturated slides were prepared and heated to 300°C and 550°C. Diffractograms were created using a Brüker D8 goniometer with Ni-filtered, Cu Kα radiation, operating at 20kV and 5 mA. Scan ranges were 2–30°2θ, with a step size of 0.05°2θ, and step rate of 3 sec.

Soil chemical analyses

Basic soil analyses followed methods detailed in Keenan et al. (2018a,b) [6,7]. Briefly, soils were hand-homogenized; rocks, insects, and large debris (> 2 mm) were removed. Gravimetric moisture was calculated from mass loss following oven drying for 72 h at 105°C. Soil pH and EC were measured on soil slurries of 1:2 soil: deionized water using an Orion Star A329 multiparameter meter (ThermoScientific).

For elemental analysis we performed a water extraction designed to target dissolved organic and inorganic fractions present in the soil water solution; i.e., mobile and bioavailable elements. Water extractions also avoided some limitations of other extractants, including: 1) introducing pH changes during the extraction process that would be outside measured environmental parameters and potentially alter elemental solubility, 2) increasing yield by altering the solubilization and displacement of elements from the exchange and nonexchangeable soil fractions (Mehlich 3), and 3) determining total elemental concentrations irrespective of bioavailability (aqua regia digestion methods) [39]. In our extraction procedure 6.67 g soil was added to 40 ml of deionized water (1:7 soil:water) and shaken at 20°C for four hours at 160 rpm. Following shaking, slurries were allowed to settle for one hour, and then were centrifuged at 2,175 rcf for two hours. Supernatants were filtered through 0.45 μm pore syringe filters, and final extractants were stabilized by acidification to 1% total volume (pH < 2) with spectrophotometric grade nitric acid. Elemental analysis of soil extracts was done by inductively-coupled argon plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICPOES). Analyses were performed at the University of Tennessee’s Water Quality Core Facility laboratory on a ThermoElement ICAP7400 fitted with polyethylene vials and tubing and a Teflon nebulizer to minimize background Na and B cross-contamination from borosilicate glass components. This method was based on EPA method 200.7 [40]. Analytical batches included nitric acid blanks and quality control reference standards within the concentration range of the study samples. Reference standard concentrations were within 90–100% of nominal values.

Element selection for analyses was based upon human body composition in combination with extraction suitability for ICPOES analysis. Elements selected for analysis included: Ca, P, K, S, Na, Mg, Fe, Cu, Mn, Zn, Se, Co, and B. The mobility of Al (as well as Fe, Cu, Mn, Zn, and Co) can alter under soil acidification frequently observed during human decomposition, thus Al was included as an element of potential interest, both in terms of utility for human remains detection and for evaluating its solubility patterns in decomposition environments.

Raw data is available as a supplemental dataset (S1 File).

Statistical analyses

Human donors (n = 3) were treated as experimental replicates. Kruskal-Wallace nonparametric tests were performed to test for differences between decomposition impacted and control soils over the course of the study (p < 0.05), followed by Welch T-tests conducted at individual sampling time points. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to construct a correlation matrix comparing abiotic and elemental parameters in decomposition soils. Principal component analysis was performed to visualize multivariate relationships between abiotic parameters and elements throughout the study. For multivariate cluster analysis, elemental concentrations were scaled to a mean of zero and standard deviation of 1 and hierarchically clustered by Pearson correlations. All analyses and visualizations were performed in R (version 3.6.1) using the tidyverse (1.2.1), vegan, ggplot2 (version 3.2.1), pheatmap (1.0.12), and RColorBrewer (version 1.1–2) packages [4146]. R code and associated analyses files are available: https://github.com/jdebruyn/SPOT-soilelements.

Results

Decomposition progression

Cool temperatures at the beginning of the study resulted in a prolonged period of early decomposition in which little change was evident. Bloating and initial decomposition fluid leaching was apparent by day 14, as both temperatures and insect activity increased. Active decay began by day 17, followed by the expansion of “wet” cadaver decomposition islands (CDIs) throughout days 28 to 42 and during the period of greatest tissue loss. CDIs were considered dry by day 80 and contained hard crusts with visible adipocere. Donors exhibited either late advanced decay/very early skeletonization (moderate tissue remaining) or mummification by the end of the study (day 122).

Soil texture

Soils for all donor sites were classified as silt loam and composed of the following fractions: sand (26 to 41%), silt (56 to 69%), and clay (3 to 5%).

Soil mineralogy

X-ray diffractograms reflect a similarity in clay mineral composition between soil sites (S1 Fig). A characteristic shift in d-value from 1 nm under K+ saturation to 1.4 nm under both Mg2+ and Mg2+ + glycol saturation indicated the presence of vermiculite [34,47]; the presence of a 1.23 nm peak under Mg2+ and Mg2+ + glycol saturation indicated the presence of vermiculite interstratification with mica. Kaolinite (d = 0.7 nm) was also present.

Soil biogeochemistry

The pH and EC of soils impacted by human decomposition significantly differed from controls over the entire study (Kruskal-Wallace, p < 0.05) (Table 3). As decomposition products moved into the soil, pH decreased and EC increased, both of which became significantly different relative to controls on day 33 (Fig 1, S1 and S2 Tables). Conductivity reached a maximum on day 117 at 455.9 ± 201 μS cm-1. Soil pH reached a minimum of 5.8 on days 45 and 49, and remained significantly different than controls at the end of the study.

Table 3. Effects of decomposition on element abundances in soil.

Element Control Decomposition Χ 2 p
pH 7.4 ± 0.2 6.4 ± 0.5 81.893 <0.001***
Conductivity (EC) 70.8 ± 17.5 266.7 ± 118.4 59.281 <0.001***
Calcium (Ca) 137.9 ± 17.2 210.1 ± 80.8 13.149 <0.001***
Phosphorus (P) 1 ± 0.1 9.8 ± 7.4 50.645 <0.001***
Potassium (K) 27.6 ± 4.8 80 ± 35.5 50.597 <0.001***
Sulfur180 (S) 6.5 ± 0.8 23.4 ± 10 76.701 <0.001***
Sodium (Na) 2.3 ± 0.4 126.7 ± 70.5 113.15 <0.001***
Magnesium (Mg) 7.5 ± 0.7 19.2 ± 7.7 61.467 <0.001***
Iron (Fe) 2.2 ± 0.7 6.2 ± 7.3 14.163 <0.001***
Copper (Cu) 0.05 ± 0.01 0.08 ± 0.04 16.306 <0.001***
Manganese (Mn) 0.6 ± 0.2 19 ± 15.9 62.469 <0.001***
Zinc (Zn) 0.04 ± 0.01 0.15 ± 0.12 60.577 <0.001***
Selenium (Se) 0.01 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.02 60.213 <0.001***
Cobalt (Co) 0.00 ± 0.00 0.08 ± 0.11 52.765 <0.001***
Boron (B) 0.36 ± 0.04 0.53 ± 0.18 3.351 0.067
Aluminum (Al) 9.1 ± 2.3 11.6 ± 13.8 5.196 0.023*

Control and decomposition soil means ± standard deviations (SD) (n = 3) across all timepoints analyzed are presented, along with results (Χ2 and p value) of Kruskal-Wallace tests comparing decomposition soils with controls over the entire trial (df = 1). Units of conductivity (EC) are μS cm-1, and units for all soil elemental concentrations are presented in μg gdw-1 soil. Elements (excepting Al) are listed in approximate order of percentage found in the human body from greatest to least.

Fig 1. Effects of decomposition on soil pH and conductivity.

Fig 1

Comparisons between decomposition impacted and control soils over the entire study trial for A) pH, and B) electrical conductivity (EC). Data are means (diamonds) and medians (bars) for n = 3 replicate donors. Statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between decomposition and control soils are denoted by an asterisk.

With the exception of B, all elemental concentrations differed significantly between decomposition and control soils (Kruskal-Wallace, p < 0.05) (Table 3). Principal component analysis revealed three groupings of elements: Group 1 elements increased early and persisted at elevated concentrations through the end of the study; group 2 elements increased early but decreased at later time points, and group 3 elements increased only at later time periods (Fig 2). The grouping of elements is also supported by hierarchical cluster analysis of elemental profiles (Fig 3). Hierarchical clustering further revealed that while groups 1 and 3 formed distinct clusters, group 2 elements, particularly those of Mn and Se, were more closely related to group 1 elements.

Fig 2. Principal component analysis (PCA) of pH, conductivity (EC), and elemental concentrations by study day.

Fig 2

Points represent individual samples colored by study day, and vectors represent elements, pH, and EC. The PCA diagram shows three groups of elements. Group 1: Sodium (Na), sulfur (S), phosphorus (P), EC, and potassium (K). Group 2: Manganese (Mn), selenium (Se), boron (B), magnesium (Mg), and calcium (Ca). Group 3: Aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn).

Fig 3. Heatmap showing scaled changes in elemental concentrations by study day.

Fig 3

Three distinct groups and patterns of change occur in EC and elemental concentrations. Group 1 includes sodium (Na), conductivity (EC), sulfur (S), potassium (K), and phosphorus (P); these increase by day 17 and soil concentrations persist throughout the study. Group 2 includes selenium (Se), manganese (Mn), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), and boron (B); these elements also increase by day 17, however soil concentrations decline later in the trial. Group 3 includes: cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), aluminum (Al), and iron (Fe); these elements increase following day 89. Elemental concentrations are scaled to a mean of zero and standard deviation of 1 and are hierarchically clustered according to Pearson correlations.

Group 1 contained the elements Na, S, P, and K. The elements P, K, and S reached mean peak concentrations and significantly differed from control soils between days 33 and 56 with soil concentration increases that ranged from 3.7 to 22 times those of control concentrations. Na exhibited the greatest increase above controls, followed by P, then S, then K. Na concentrations reached a first maximum on day 38 at 213.2 ± 82.3 μg gdw-1, and a second maximum concentration on day 117 at 232.7 ± 161.6 μg gdw-1, approximately two orders of magnitude greater than control soil concentrations, and significantly differed from control soil intermittently between days 35 through 49 (Fig 4, S1 and S2 Tables). Overall, group 1 elements were highly positively correlated with each other (Pearson r = 0.73 to 0.89), with Na and K exhibiting the highest correlation (Pearson r = 0.89) (Fig 5). This group of elements was also positively correlated with EC (Pearson r = 0.59 to 0.85) with the highest correlation occurring between EC and Na, and the lowest between EC and P. All group 1 elements were negatively correlated with pH (Pearson r = -0.38 to -0.5). Soil charge concentrations of exchangeable cations (Na+ and K+) also exceeded those found in control soils. The mean maxima for Na+ (days 38 and 117) were 9.3 ± 3.6 μmolc gdw-1 and 10.7 ± 7 μmolc gdw-1 respectively, an increase of approximately 90 times, whereas maxima for K+ occurred between days 33 through 56 at a mean of 3.1 μmolc gdw-1 an increase of about 4 times that of control soils (Fig 6, S3 Table).

Fig 4. Effects of decomposition on group 1 element abundances in soil.

Fig 4

Comparisons between decomposition and control soils over the entire trial for A) phosphorus, B) potassium, C) sodium, and D) sulfur. Data are means (diamonds) and medians (bars) for n = 3 replicate donors. Statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between decomposition and control soils are denoted by asterisks.

Fig 5. Correlations between soil pH, EC, and elemental concentrations during human decomposition.

Fig 5

Pearson correlation matrix showing relationships between pH, conductivity (EC), and individual elements in decomposition-impacted soils. Diagonal panels display pH, EC, and individual elemental distributions. Pearson correlation r values are shown between pH, EC, and elements at the top of the matrix. Pearson correlation r > 0.80 are shown in large bold type. EC and elemental concentration ranges are presented in μS cm-1 (EC) and μg gdw-1 soil (elements).

Fig 6. Effects of decomposition on charge concentrations in soil.

Fig 6

Comparisons between molar charge concentrations in decomposition and control soils over the entire trial for A) calcium, B) sodium, C) potassium, and D) magnesium. Selected elements are exchangeable base cations in soil. Data are means ± standard deviations for n = 3 replicate donors.

Group 2 contains the elements Mn, Mg, Se, B, and Ca, of which Mn, Se, and B are considered trace elements in the human body. Of this group, elemental concentrations increased early, and with the exception of B, maximum mean elemental concentrations were recorded on day 49 (Figs 3 and 7, S1, S2 and S4 Tables). Mg and Ca concentrations were highly correlated (Pearson r = 0.89; Figs 3 and 5), and after reaching maximum concentrations, decreased on day 54 by approximately 40%, after which concentrations remained relatively stable and intermittently elevated above background levels through day 75. Mn and Se soil concentrations did not significantly differ from controls on the study date at which their maximum mean concentrations were observed (day 49); however, in the case of Se, significant elevations were observed between days 61 through 89 and again on day 117, Mn differed from background soils on day 89, and reached maximum concentrations of 62.3 ± 43.2 μg gdw-1, 89 times that of controls. Mg, Se, B, and Ca had maximum concentrations of 3.1 to 17.8 times those found in control soils. All elements in this group were positively correlated with EC (Pearson r = 0.24 to 0.59), although these correlations were weaker than observed for group 1 elements (Fig 5). Similar to group 1, group 2 elements were negatively correlated with pH (Pearson r = -0.32 to -0.67). Soil charge concentrations of exchangeable cations (Ca2+ and Mg2+) also exceeded those found in control soils, and the mean maxima for both elements (day 49) were 20 ± 6.3 μmolc gdw-1 and 3 ± 0.1 μmolc gdw-1 respectively, an increase of between 3 and 5 times that of control soils (Fig 6, S3 Table).

Fig 7. Effects of decomposition on group 2 element abundances in soil.

Fig 7

Comparisons between decomposition and control soils over the entire trial for A) calcium, B) magnesium, C) manganese, D) selenium, and E) boron. Data are means (diamonds) and medians (bars) for n = 3 replicate donors. Statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between decomposition and control soils are denoted by asterisks.

Group 3 consisted of the elements Fe, Co, Cu, and Zn, all considered trace elements within the human body. Increased concentrations in decomposition soils were primarily observed later in the study, with most elements exhibiting significant differences from controls on or following day 45, and maximum mean soil concentrations between days 103 and 117 (Figs 3 and 8, S2 and S4 Tables). The most significant increases with respect to controls occurred in Fe at 27.3 ± 4.2 μg gdw-1. Al, not an element found in the human body but present as Al oxyhydroxides in soils [34], exhibited significantly decreased concentrations in comparison with controls (> 50% decrease) prior to day 75, and increases of an order of magnitude at maximum concentrations on day 103 at 58.9 ± 15.8 μg gdw-1. Of this group of elements only Al and Fe exhibited a high positive correlation (Pearson r = 0.82) (Figs 3 and 5). Correlations between group 3 elements and EC showed a similar range as those for group 2 elements (Pearson r = 0.20 to 0.60), however correlations between group 3 elements and pH were weaker in comparison with groups 1 and 2 (Pearson r = 0.01 to -0.38).

Fig 8. Effects of decomposition on group 3 element abundances in soil.

Fig 8

Comparisons between decomposition and control soils over the entire trial for A) iron, B) zinc, C) copper, D) cobalt, and E) aluminum. Data are means (diamonds) and medians (bars) for n = 3 replicate donors. Statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between decomposition and control soils are denoted by asterisks.

Discussion

Our study evaluated decomposition-induced changes in a suite of elements in soil solutions that included both those occurring in significant quantity in the human body (Ca, P, K, S, Na, Mg) as well as biologically important trace elements (Fe, Cu, Mn, Zn, Se, Co, B). Al was included with this study because it is commonly found in soils and its mobility in the soil solution might be affected by soil acidification, which is frequently observed during human and less often during animal decomposition. We revealed significant increases in all elements except for B and demonstrated that dissolved soil elements could be clearly ordered into three groups according to their temporal patterns during decomposition.

Group 1 elements

Group 1 elements consisted of those found in high abundance in the human body (P, K, Na, and S) [29]. Concentrations of these elements in soil all increased initially by the onset of active decay and were closely coupled with increases in EC, and to a lesser extent decreases in pH.

The presence of P in decomposition environments has arguably received the greatest characterization after C and N. P is the second-most abundant of the non-trace mineral elements tested that originate from the living adult human body (estimated 0.7 to 1.2% of weight) after Ca [29,48,49]. Approximately 85% of P in the body is found in the skeleton in the form of hydroxyapatite, and the remaining 15% is found in soft tissues, viscera, and the extracellular space [48,49]. For our mean cadaver mass of 78.9 kg, this constitutes between 552 and 947 g of total P in the body, with approximately 83 to 142 g in the soft tissues that could be released during early decomposition. Previous studies have reported concentrations of P that are variously described according to fractions selected for quantification (total P, lipid P, bioavailable P, etc.) which differ according to their extraction methodology, therefore direct comparisons of P between studies is problematic. For the purposes of this discussion “soil P” does not distinguish between fractions unless specified, nor does it imply that detectable quantities are dissolved. Animal studies consistently report initial increases in soil P across multiple extraction fractions at the onset of decay [15,16,18,19] as early as day 8 [18] and 190 ADD [16]. Following the initial increase, P generally decreased gradually but remained elevated for months or years under animals > 1.5 kg [12,13,18,21,22,24,25,28]. Due to difficulties associated with replication in human decomposition studies, soil P has not been characterized to the same extent for human decomposition, especially longitudinally, so patterns are unclear. For example: while we observed an initial increase in P during early decomposition, accompanied by decreased pH, concentrations of P exhibited a high degree of variance and did not statistically differ from background values except on two dates (days 35 and 45) with maximum values occurring on day 38; these results differ slightly from those of Cobaugh et al. [5] who reported an overall lack of significant changes in both P and pH at the same facility. In a cross-sectional study, Fancher et al. [17] found elevated P up to 1752 days postmortem over two soil series, also noting that pH did not display specific trends. Likewise, Szelecz et al. [26] reported elevated P with no change to soil pH in a forensic case estimated at 22 months in which dry remains were recovered. Aitkenhead-Peterson et al. [10] used a water extraction and reported elevated P after 248 days (>5400 ADD) in soils that acidified under two human donors. Inorganic P exhibits complex soil chemistry (as predominantly H2PO4- in our soil pH range), strongly adsorbing to Al and Fe oxyhydroxides and to clay minerals, and is thus retained by soil; the solubility of both Al and Fe in the soil solution are pH-dependent, notably increasing at pH < 6 [34]. Taken together, this suggests some degree of complexation of unbound forms of inorganic P. Since P is commonly found in decomposition soils, it is likely that early measurements may reflect dissolved organic forms of P from the degradation of serum, tissues, and lipids, which have not sufficiently decomposed to complex with soil. Late measurements (skeletonization and dry remains) may be more reflective of inorganic P sourced from bone, and given the greater quantities of P available in the bone matrix it is likely that elevated soil P concentrations derived from bone would be found outside the time frame of our study.

Human bodies are composed of approximately 0.15–0.18% K and 0.11–0.14% Na by weight [29,48]. Both elements are generally present as uncomplexed cations (as Na+ and K+) and largely found in extra- and intracellular fluid, functioning jointly to regulate blood pressure, fluid, and electrolyte balances [48]. For our mean cadaver mass of 78.9 kg, this constitutes up to 142 g of K+ and 110 g Na+ potentially entering the soil as free cations with the early flush of decomposition fluid. As decomposition progressed, we observed soil concentrations of both K+ and Na+ that exhibited similar temporal patterns of change, increasing with EC during active decay and remaining significantly elevated into early advanced decay. However, despite the similar concentrations in the human body, mean soil and molar charge concentrations of K+ were approximately half those of Na+. Na+ and K+ are exchangeable cations in the soil, and K+ is selectively preferred to Na+ on the soil exchange complex [34]. It is possible that this overall reduction in K+ in comparison with Na+ may result from an exchange complex partially saturated by both K+ and the large amounts of exchangeable ammonium (NH4+) released during early decay [5,79,11,14,15,18]. It is interesting to note that our soils are partly composed of vermiculite and interstratified mica-vermiculite, the interlayer of which can collapse when saturated with K+ and NH4+. If this phenomenon occurs, it would then immobilize any K+ within the mineral interlayers and effectively reduce or eliminate any further exchange processes.

Overall, our time-resolved results for K and Na concentrations are consistent with reports from other human decomposition studies [9,10,17]. For example, in a longitudinal study at the ARF, Vass et al. [9] assessed soil elemental changes for a variety of soil cations (including Na and K), and reported that collectively elemental increases tended to peak at about 750 ADD, followed by a second peak at 3750–4000 ADD. In our study, both elements reached their first maxima between days 38–56, corresponding to the period 594 to 987 ADD, however we did not observe appreciable decreases in concentrations. Other studies of decomposing human subjects have also reported broadly elevated Na and K in soil that range from months to years [10,17]. Animal decomposition studies have shown no consensus on soil K patterns [16,18,22,25,28]. However, animal studies have shown evidence of generally elevated soil Na during decomposition [25] as well as elevated Na in the tissues of nearby plants [16]. While our study site was a forest with ample nearby vegetation, we did not observe an appreciable decrease in soil Na over the course of our study, suggesting that vegetation uptake (if any) did not necessarily constitute a major loss pathway for Na. Both Na and K conjugate with fatty acids derived from fat decomposition, forming fatty acid salts and contributing to the formation of adipocere, potentially immobilizing a portion of both elemental pools. The eventual breakdown of these fatty acid salts may constitute a slow release of both elements contributing to later elevated concentrations, however in one study examining Na+ and K+ fatty acid salts, neither were found to change over a period of several months [30], suggesting that this might be an impact observed much later in the decomposition time frame.

Sulfur quantities in the human body are roughly equal to that of K (0.15%) [29]; S is a constituent of the amino acids methionine and cysteine, sulfur-containing acids (taurine and homocysteine), and bile salts resulting from the conjugation of bile acids with taurine. Interestingly, while temporal patterns in soil were the same as that of K in our study, soil concentrations of S were lower by approximately two-thirds. This is likely because the mobility and loss pathways for S differ considerably from the base cations Na and K, and for P. Unlike the other group 1 elements, S is primarily tied up in organic molecules that require microbial degradation to more available forms. S-containing VOCs have been detected during decomposition [1,5053], thus a fraction of S is lost to the atmosphere. Elevated soil S concentrations were reported in both animal [25,54] and human decomposition studies [9,10]. Recent work has also shown the presence of S-containing metabolites, notably taurine and other amino acids, in decomposition-impacted soils [8]. Since this mobility in soil originates primarily from microbial processes and will differ from elements that interact with the soil cation exchange complex, it is possible that the systematic degradation of S-containing compounds may show promise as temporal indicators of decomposition progression.

Taken together, our results suggest that initial increases in the group 1 elements Na, K, P, and S stem directly from cadaver-derived soil inputs, and that both their concentrations and persistence in soil varies based upon soil complexation (P), the dynamics of the soil exchange complex (Na, K) and gradual releases attributable to microbial degradation (S).

Group 2 elements

Group 2 contains the elements Ca, Mg, Mn, Se, and B, of which Mn, Se, and B are considered trace elements in the human body [48,49]. Soil concentrations for elements in this group increased at the same time as group 1 elements, but then declined in late active and early advanced decay.

Ca comprises approximately 1.5–2% of the human body weight. More than 99% of the Ca in the body is found in the skeleton in the form of hydroxyapatite [29,48,49]. In contrast, Mg estimates vary between 25 g and 0.02% of the human body, and is found distributed between skeletal and soft tissues in approximately equal quantities [29,48]. In a 78.9 kg human the total amount of Ca and Mg would be about 1.2 to 1.6 kg (12 to 16 g in soft tissue) and 16 to 25 g (8 to 12.5 g in soft tissue), respectively. We observed highly correlated patterns of increase in Ca and Mg during the period of soft tissue loss (active and early advanced decay), and sudden decreased soil concentrations of both elements as tissue loss slowed during the transition from active to advanced decay. Surprisingly, soil concentrations of Ca and Mg were higher than would be expected based on input quantities from soft tissue. Ca2+ and Mg2+ are exchangeable cations in soil and dominate the exchange complex of circumneutral pH soils. In our study, combined monovalent cation charge in control soils (Na+ and K+) was approximately 10% of combined divalent cation charge (Ca2+ and Mg2+). In decomposition-impacted soils the percentage of combined monovalent charge rose to 57% on day 17, and by day 56 exceeded 100% of divalent cation charge. During early decomposition, high concentrations of exchangeable NH4+ resulting from soft-tissue degradation are released into the soil in conjunction with K+ and Na+; it is possible that the combined charge of these three monovalent cations could shift the exchange equilibrium prior to day 56, releasing previously adsorbed Ca2+ and Mg2+. This potential release of divalent cations from the exchange complex may explain both the persistence of elevated Na+ and K+, as well as the presence of early increased concentrations of Ca and Mg that could not otherwise be attributed to soft-tissue release or to much later-occurring bone diagenesis. This release would also be expected given the strong preference of vermiculite for NH4+ and K+ [34]. As observed for K and Na, Ca and Mg exhibit similar temporal patterns of change in human decomposition-impacted soils, however reports vary from non-specifically elevated [10,17] to observing increases only at late time points following advanced decay [9,30]. Ca is the most prominent (greatest abundance) of the two elements and it has been proposed as a good candidate for inclusion in soil-based decomposition models as a predictor of PMI [17]. Animal studies have reported similar increases in Ca and Mg [16,25]. Our results did not show increases of either element late in decomposition that could be potentially attributed to bone material; given our study length of 122 days, we did not expect appreciable bone degradation. Our results suggest that while both Ca and Mg are plentiful in the human body, their immediate accessibility during active decay (soft tissue loss) is unpredictable due to differences in a given soil’s cation exchange dynamics.

Interestingly, soil solution concentrations of both Ca and Mg were reduced beginning on day 56 during the period in which active decay was transitioning to advanced decay. At this time the CDI was still “wet” and exhibiting evidence of fat decomposition products. Shortly thereafter (day 80) CDIs were observed to have dried and formed hard crusts in which visible adipocere was present. The formation of adipocere includes interactions between fatty acids, Na, and K, leading to the formation of fatty acid salts, and there is evidence that Ca and Mg present in the soil can displace Na and K, thus forming Ca and Mg salts [55,56]. Given that our extraction methodology was water-based and thus would not solubilize adipocere, it is entirely possible that we have observed dual phenomena: the evolution of Ca and Mg from the soil exchange complex and into the soil solution, followed by the incorporation of both cations into adipocere. This possibility is supported by Lühe et al. [30], in which both Ca and Mg fatty acid salt concentrations increased over time following human decomposition. Further study would be needed to quantify fatty acid and fatty acid salt content of these soils to directly link elemental changes with fat decomposition transformation products, and to begin the creation of an elemental soil budget.

Mn is considered a trace element in humans, and is distributed throughout a variety of tissues and in serum with estimated abundances of less than 20 mg [48,49]. Increases in Mn in decomposition soils were notable: an overall increase of 89 times that found in control soils, and the largest increase in comparison with controls within the group 2 elements. Soil acidification is known to increase solubility of Al, Mn and Fe [57]. Soils in our study gradually acidified through day 45 to a mean pH of 5.8, suggesting that the substantial concentration increases in Mn found in decomposition soil may derive in part from cadaveric inputs, but also from the soil matrix due to an increase in pH-induced solubility. Soil acidification in combination with reduced oxygen found in decomposition environments are likely to favor Mn2+ from solubilized Mn [7,34].

Se is also considered a trace element within the human body, generally found as a component of selenoproteins, and with serum or plasma concentrations ranging from 61–99 μg L-1 [58]. While soil increases of Se in this study were not substantial in comparison with other elements, it is worth noting that Se behaves similarly in many respects to S, both in the human body and in the environment [34,48,58]. Additionally, Se found within plants is directly related to the Se content within soil [58]. Thus, it is possible that fate and behavior of Se in soil and its subsequent uptake by nearby plants may prove a uniquely useful indicator of decomposition progression or presence.

In contrast with elemental grouping levels derived from our PCA ordination, hierarchical clustering based upon correlative relationships suggested an alternative view that Mg, Ca, Mn, Se, and B are related to group 1 elements rather than forming their own unique grouping level. Correlative relationships are mathematically strong with respect to elemental concentration changes and their timings, however caution should be exercised in interpretation to avoid conflating apparent patterns derived from a combination of tissue decomposition, pH, and the soil exchange. For example, unlike Ca2+ and Mg2+ which are highly correlated and behave similarly in soil, Mn and Se appear to derive from differing sources (soil and soft tissue, respectively) and by dissimilar mechanisms, thus suggesting that their correlation was largely mathematical rather than mechanistic. It is our view that these elements (Mg, Ca, Mn, Se, and B) can be classified, albeit loosely, into their own separate grouping level.

Taken together, increases in the group 2 elements appear to result partially from cadaver-derived materials (Se) but also potentially from the impacts of the influx of group 1 elements (Na, K and ammonium) on the soil exchange complex (Ca, Mg), or from increased solubility resulting from soil acidification (Mn).

Group 3 elements

Group 3 consists of Fe, trace elements in the human body (Cu, Zn, Co), and Al. Unlike groups 1 and 2, this group of elements exhibited increased concentrations at the end of the decomposition period after the majority of tissue mass had been lost. Cu and Zn also exhibited slight increases between days 19 through 66. Approximately 4 g of Fe is present in the human body, about two-thirds of which is found in hemoglobin, and 15% associated with muscle tissue and enzymes [49]. It is estimated that about 100 mg of Cu is present in the human body, primarily in skeletal and muscle tissues, and enzyme cofactors [49]. Zinc in the human body ranges from approximately 1.5 to 2.5 g, most of which is located in skeletal and muscle tissues [48]. Cobalt constitutes around 1 to 2 mg in the human body, and is a component of vitamin B12, coenzymes, and otherwise distributed throughout a variety of tissues [59]. Al is toxic to humans although transiently found in the body in small quantities. Al has been included in this elemental survey because it is present in soil in numerous aluminosilicate minerals as well as Al oxyhydroxides, and can become mobile in soil under soil acidification that is frequently associated with human decomposition. Given their trace abundances in the human body it is likely that as the soil slowly acidified and remained acidic, these elements were gradually solubilized from soil minerals, and that late soil increases in these elements results less from cadaver tissue-derived inputs and more from the soil itself.

Conclusions

This work presents a detailed longitudinal characterization of changes in soil solution elemental concentrations during human decomposition furthering our understanding of nutrient deposition and cycling in these environments. We identified three groups of elements based on their temporal changes. Group 1 elements appear to be cadaver-derived (Na, K, P, S). Group 2 includes three elements that have greater concentrations in soil than would be expected based on cadaver inputs alone, suggesting that these elements partially originate from the soil as a direct result of removal from the exchange (Ca, Mg), or that they are solubilized as a result of soil acidification (Mn). Group 3 includes Al and elements that are found in trace quantities in both humans and soil (Fe, Cu, Zn, Co); all exhibited increases late in the decomposition process, suggesting a gradual solubilization from soil minerals under acidic pH conditions. For forensic applications which seek a reliable marker of the timing of decomposition, elements that change independently of edaphic factors are ideal. Since soil composition, chemistry, and exchange properties vary between regions, it is preferential to consider only elements that are directly cadaver-derived (i.e., group 1 and Se) as potential forensic indicators. Of these cadaver-derived elements, S shows promise as a potential indicator for decomposition progression since its abundances are tied primarily to the breakdown of proteins and larger organic molecules as opposed to participating in the soil exchange. P did not exhibit a specific pattern over our study period, however, its persistence in soil via complexation and gradual deposition resulting from bone diagenesis suggests P may prove to be an indicator of vertebrate decomposition, particularly in the instance of cadaver removal from the decomposition site. Se may also prove useful as a support indicator based upon a broad range of characteristics: microbially mediated breakdown products of selenoproteins, a similarity of environmental behavior to that of S, and enrichment within plant tissues.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. X-ray diffractograms of clay minerals.

Treatments (K+ saturated at 25°C, K+ saturated at 300°C, K+ saturated at 550°C, Mg2+ saturated, and Mg2+ with glycol saturated) are shown for soils originating from two separate ARF locations (A and B) having no previous decomposition activity. Clay minerals are identified by d-spacing in nm.

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Elemental concentrations in soil during human decomposition.

Selected elements are those that occur in greatest abundance in the human body and are listed in approximate order of percentage found in the human body from greatest to least. Data are means ± standard deviations for n = 3 replicate donors. Impacted soils that significantly differ from controls based upon Welch T-tests (p < 0.05) are presented in bold type. Asterisks indicate levels of significance: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Results of Welch T-tests between decomposition-impacted soils and controls.

Welch T-tests assuming unequal sample variances were conducted at each sampling time point in order to compare differences between impacted soils and controls for pH, electrical conductivity (EC), calcium (Ca), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), sulfur (S), sodium (Na), magnesium (Mg), Iron (Fe), copper (Cu), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), selenium (Se), cobalt (Co), boron, (B), and aluminum (Al). P values are shown, and significant differences based upon p < 0.05 are presented in bold type. Asterisks indicate levels of significance: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Charge concentrations of exchangeable cations in soil during human decomposition.

Charge concentrations (μmolc gdw-1) of exchangeable cations (Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+) in controls and decomposition-impacted soils are shown for the entire study. Data are means ± standard deviations for n = 3 replicate donors.

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Trace elemental concentrations in soil during human decomposition.

With the exception of Aluminum (Al), selected elements are those that occur in trace abundance in the human body and are listed in approximate order of percentage found in the human body from greatest to least. Aluminosilicates are common to East Tennessee soils, and Al is included in order to demonstrate increased mobility in soil under decreased pH found in decomposition. Data are means ± standard deviations for n = 3 replicate donors. Impacted soils that significantly differ from controls based upon Welch T-tests (p < 0.05) are presented in bold type. Asterisks indicate levels of significance: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

(DOCX)

S1 File. Raw data for this study.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the donors and their families, and the support personnel with the University of Tennessee Forensic Anthropology Center. We also thank Jennifer K. Baer, Mallari Starrett, Morgan White, and Melanie Stewart for their assistance in laboratory analyses and soil sampling, and Anielle Duncan for assistance at the Anthropology Research Facility. Analytical support for this project was provided by the Water Quality Core Facility at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, under the management of Adrian Gonzalez, PhD. Finally, we extend our sincerest appreciation to our anonymous reviewers whose feedback has greatly improved this manuscript.

Data Availability

Data can be found as a dataset in the Supporting Information files and in the github repository: https://github.com/jdebruyn/SPOT-soilelements.

Funding Statement

The authors acknowledge funding by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Award No. D20AC00007) to CNS, SCL, AZM, DWS and JMD. The views, opinions, and/or findings expressed are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official views of policies of the Department of Defense or the United States Government (Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited). Publication fees were granted by the University of Tennessee Librarians Open Publishing Support Fund. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Martin C, Verheggen F. Odour profile of human corpses: a review. Forensic Chem. 2018;10: 27–36. doi: 10.1016/j.forc.2018.07.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Miranker M, Giordano A, Spradley K. Phase II spatial patterning of vulture scavenged human remains. Forensic Sci Int. 2020;314. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110392 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Spradley MK, Hamilton MD, Giordano A. Spatial patterning of vulture scavenged human remains. Forensic Sci Int. 2012;219: 57–63. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.11.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Amendt J, Richards CS, Campobasso CP, Zehner R, Hall MJR. Forensic entomology: applications and limitations. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2011;7: 379–392. doi: 10.1007/s12024-010-9209-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cobaugh KL, Schaeffer SM, DeBruyn JM. Functional and structural succession of soil microbial communities below decomposing human cadavers. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0130201. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130201 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Keenan SW, Emmons AL, Taylor LS, Phillips G, Mason AR, Mundorff AZ, et al. Spatial impacts of a multi-individual grave on microbial and microfaunal communities and soil biogeochemistry. PLoS One. 2018. a;13(12):e0208845. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208845 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Keenan SW, Schaeffer SM, Jin VL, DeBruyn JM. Mortality hotspots: Nitrogen cycling in forest soils during vertebrate decomposition. Soil Biol Biochem. 2018. b;121: 165–176. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.03.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.DeBruyn JM, Hoeland KM, Taylor LS, Stevens JD, Moats MA, Bandopadhyay S, et al. Comparative decomposition of humans and pigs: soil biogeochemistry, microbial activity and metabolomic profiles. Front Microbiol. 2021;11:608856. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.608856 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Vass AA, Bass WM, Wolt JD, Foss JE, Ammons JT. Time since death determinations of human cadavers using soil solution. J Forensic Sci. 1992;37(5):1236–1253. doi: 10.1520/JFS13311J [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Aitkenhead-Peterson JA, Owings CG, Alexander MB, Larison N, Bytheway JA. Mapping the lateral extent of human cadaver decomposition with soil chemistry. Forensic Sci Int. 2012;216: 127–134. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.09.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Meyer J, Anderson B, Carter DO. Seasonal variation of carcass decomposition and gravesoil chemistry in a cold (Dfa) climate. J Forensic Sci. 2013;58(5): 1175–1182. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.12169 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Macdonald BCT, Farrell M, Tuomi S, Barton PS, Cunningham SA, Manning AD. Carrion decomposition causes large and lasting effects on soil amino acid and peptide flux. Soil Biol Biochem. 2014;69:132–140. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.10.042 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Barton PS, McIntyre S, Evans MJ, Bump JK, Cunningham SA, Manning AD. Substantial long-term effects of carcass addition on soil and plants in a grassy eucalypt woodland. Ecosphere. 2016;7(10). doi: 10.1002/ecs2.1537 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Metcalf JL, Xu ZZ, Weiss S, Lax S, Van Treuren W, Hyde ER, et al. Microbial community assembly and metabolic function during mammalian corpse decomposition. Science. 2016;351(6269): 158–162. doi: 10.1126/science.aad2646 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Quaggiotto MM, Evans MJ, Higgins A, Strong C, Barton PS. Dynamic soil nutrient and moisture changes under decomposing vertebrate carcasses. Biogeochemistry. 2019;146: 71–82. doi: 10.1007/s10533-019-00611-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Perrault KA, Forbes SL. Elemental analysis of soil and vegetation surrounding decomposing human analogues. Can Soc Forensic Sci J. 2016;49(3): 138–151. doi: 10.1080/00085030.2016.1184840 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Fancher JP, Aitkenhead-Peterson JA, Farris T, Mix K, Schwab AP, Wescott DJ, et al. An evaluation of soil chemistry in human cadaver decomposition islands: potential for estimating postmortem interval (PMI). Forensic Sci Int. 2017;279: 130–139. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.08.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Szelecz I, Koenig I, Seppey CVW, Le Bayon R-C, Mitchell EAD. Soil chemistry changes beneath decomposing cadavers over a one-year period. Forensic Sci Int. 2018;286: 155–165. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.02.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Benninger LA, Carter DO, Forbes SL. The biochemical alteration of soil beneath a decomposing carcass. Forensic Sci Int. 2008;180: 70–75. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2008.07.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mason AR, McKee-Zech HS, Hoeland KM, Davis MC, Campagna SR, Steadman DW, et al. Body mass index (BMI) impacts soil chemical and microbial response to human decomposition. Msphere. 2022. doi: 10.1128/msphere.00325-22 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Heo CC, Tomberlin JK, Aitkenhead-Peterson JA. Soil chemistry dynamics of Sus scrofa carcasses with and without delayed Diptera colonization. J Forensic Sci. 2020;66(3): 947–959. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.14645 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Towne EG. Prairie vegetation and soil nutrient responses to ungulate carcasses. Oecologia. 2000;122: 232–9. doi: 10.1007/PL00008851 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Anderson B, Meyer J, Carter DO. Dynamics of ninhydrin-reactive nitrogen and pH in gravesoil during the extended postmortem interval. J Forensic Sci. 2013;58(5):1348–1352. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.12230 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Barton PS, Reboldi A, Dawson BM, Ueland M, Strong C, Wallman JF. Soil chemical markers distinguishing human and pig decomposition islands: a preliminary study. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2020;16: 605–612. doi: 10.1007/s12024-020-00297-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Parmenter RR, MacMahon JA. Carrion decomposition and nutrient cycling in a semiarid shrub-steppe ecosystem. Ecol Monogr. 2009;79(4): 637–661. doi: 10.1890/08-0972.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Szelecz I, Losch S, Seppey CVW, Lara E, Singer D, Sorge F, et al. Comparative analysis of bones, mites, soil chemistry, nematodes and soil micro-eukaryotes from a suspected homicide to estimate the post-mortem interval. Sci Rep. 2018;8. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-18179-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Coe M. The decomposition of elephant carcases in the Tsavo (East) National Park, Kenya. J Arid Environ. 1978;1(1):71–86. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bump JK, Webster CR, Vucetich JA, Peterson RO, Shields JM, Powers MD. Ungulate carcasses perforate ecological filters and create biogeochemical hotspots in forest herbaceous layers allowing trees a competitive advantage. Ecosystems. 2009;12: 996–1007. doi: 10.1007/s10021-009-9274-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Heymsfield SB, Waki M, Kehayias J, Lichtman S, Dilmanian FA, Kamen Y, et al. Chemical and elemental analysis of humans in vivo using improved body composition models. Am J Physiol. 1991;261(2):E190–E198. doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.1991.261.2.E190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Lühe B, Fiedler S, Mayes RW, Dawson L. Temporal fatty acid profiles of human decomposition fluid in soil. Org Geochem. 2017;111: 26–33. doi: 10.1016/j.orggeochem.2017.06.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Notter SJ, Stuart BH, Rowe R, Langlois N. The initial changes of fat deposits during the decomposition of human and pig remains. J Forensic Sci. 2009;54(1):195–201. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00911.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Dautartas A, Kenyhercz MW, Vidoli GM, Jantz LM, Mundorff A, Steadman DW. Differential decomposition among pig, rabbit, and human remains. J Forensic Sci. 2018;63: 1673–1683. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.13784 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Steadman DW, Dautartas A, Kenyhercz MW, Jantz LM, Mundorff A, Vidoli GM. Differential scavenging among pig, rabbit, and human subjects. J Forensic Sci. 2018;63:1684–1691. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.13786 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Essington ME. Soil and water chemistry: an integrative approach. Soil and water chemistry: an integrative approach. 2nd ed. Boca Raton. CRC Press; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Damann FE, Tanittaisong A, Carter DO. Potential carcass enrichment of the University of Tennessee Anthropology Research Facility: a baseline survey of edaphic features. Forensic Sci Int. 2012;222: 4–10. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.04.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Soil Survey Staff. Soil Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture; 2018 [cited 11 November 2022]. Available from: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/.
  • 37.Hartgrove N. Soil Survey of Knox County, Tennessee. United States Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service; 2006.
  • 38.Soukup DA, Buck BJ, Harris W. Chapter 2. Preparing soils for mineralogical analyses. In: Methods of soil analysis Part 5, Mineralogical methods. Madison, Wisconsin: Soil Science Society of America; 2008. p. 13–31. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Gaudino S, Galas C, Belli M, Barbizzi S, de Zorzi P, Jacimovic R, et al. The role of different soil sample digestion methods on trace elements analysis: a comparison of ICP-MS and INAA measurement results. Accredit Qual Assur. 2007;12: 84–93. doi: 10.1007/s00769-006-0238-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.USEPA, United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Method 200.7: Determination of metals and trace elements in water and wastes by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry, Revision 4.4. https://www.epa.gov/esam/method-2007-determination-metals-and-trace-elements-water-and-wastes-inductively-coupled.
  • 41.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; 2021. https://www.R-project.org/. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Wickham H. Ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. New York. Springer-Verlag; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Wickham H. Easily install and load ’Tidyverse’ packages. Comprehensive R Archive Network. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Oksanen J, Blanchet F, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, et al. Vegan: community ecology package. 2019. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Neuwirth E. RColorBrewer: ColorBrewer palettes. 2014. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RColorBrewer.
  • 46.Kolde R. Pheatmap: pretty heatmaps. 2019. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pheatmap. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Carroll D. Clay minerals: a guide to their X-ray identification. Geological Society of America; 1970. doi: 10.1130/SPE126 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Marriott BP, Birt DF, Stallings VA, Yates AA. Present Knowledge in Nutrition Volume 1: Basic Nutrition and Metabolism: 11th ed. Elsevier. 2020. doi: 10.1016/c2018-0-02422-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ross AC, Caballero B, Cousins RJ, Tucker KL, Ziegler TR. Modern nutrition in health and disease. 11th ed. Philadelphia. Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Dubois LM, Stefanuto PH, Heudt L, Focant JF, Perrault KA. Characterizing decomposition odor from soil and adipocere samples at a death scene using HS-SPME-GCxGC-HRTOFMS. Forensic Chem. 2018;8: 11–20. doi: 10.1016/j.forc.2018.01.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Deo A, Forbes SL, Stuart BH, Ueland M. Profiling the seasonal variability of decomposition odour from human remains in a temperate Australian environment. Aus J Forensic Sci. 2020;52(6): 654–664. doi: 10.1080/00450618.2019.1637938 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Clases D, Ueland M, de Vega RG, Doble P, Profrock D. Quantitative speciation of volatile sulphur compounds from human cadavers by GC-ICP-MS. Talanta. 2021;221. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2020.121424 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Knobel Z, Ueland M, Nizio KD, Patel D, Forbes SL. A comparison of human and pig decomposition rates and odour profiles in an Australian environment. Aus J Forensic Sci. 2019;51(5): 557–572. doi: 10.1080/00450618.2018.1439100 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Hopkins DW, Wiltshire PEJ, Turner BD. Microbial characteristics of soils from graves: arm investigation at the interface of soil microbiology and forensic science. Appl Soil Ecol. 2000;14(3): 283–288. doi: 10.1016/s0929-1393(00)00063-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Dent BB, Forbes SL, Stuart BH. Review of human decomposition processes in soil. Environ Geol. 2004;45: 576–585. doi: 10.1007/s00254-003-0913-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Magni PA, Lawn J, Guareschi EE. A practical review of adipocere: Key findings, case studies and operational considerations from crime scene to autopsy. J Forensic Leg Med. 2021;78: 102109. doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2020.102109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Rengel Z. Availability of Mn, Zn and Fe in the rhizosphere. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2015;15(2): 397–409. doi: 10.4067/s0718-95162015005000036 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Navarro-Alarcon M, Cabrera-Vique C. Selenium in food and the human body: A review. Sci Total Environ. 2008;400: 115–141. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.06.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Czarnek K, Terpilowska S, Siwick AK. Selected aspects of the action of cobalt ions in the human body. Cent Eur J Immunol. 2015;40(2): 236–242. doi: 10.5114/ceji.2015.52837 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Victoria E Gibbon

30 Mar 2023

PONE-D-23-02805Soil elemental changes during human decompositionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. DeBruyn,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The revisions are minor and we look forward to receiving an updated version.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 14 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Victoria Elaine Gibbon

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The authors acknowledge funding by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Award

No. D20AC00007) to CNS, SCL, AZM, DWS and JMD. The views, opinions, and/or findings expressed are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official views of policies of the Department of Defense or the United States Government (Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited). Publication fees were granted by the University of Tennessee Librarians Open Publishing Support Fund.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that Supplementary Figure S1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Supplementary Figure S1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: PONE-D-23-02805

The authors present a timely and interesting study examining changes in soil elemental composition associated with human decomposition. The manuscript is well written, methods and data analyses seem appropriate, and the authors do not make interpretations beyond the scope of their data. The study is somewhat limited by small sample sizes but considering the nature of the work that is understandable and should not preclude publication. I have a number of minor clarifications but don’t see any reason not to accept this article for publication. However, I am not an expert in the soil physical or chemical analyses performed for this study and as such defer to the opinion of other reviewers or editorial board member.

Minor comments

The control sites were 2m from each body. What was the rationale for this specific distance? Based on the results it sees to be sufficient but no justification is provided in the text.

Table 2. Please clarify what ‘Trial 3’ in the table title refer to.

Figure 3. Branching in the cluster analysis appears to indicate that Mn and Se cluster with Group 1 rather than Group 2. Please outline why these elements are included in Group 1.

Reviewer #2: I highly recommend the presented research for publication. Althoug my positive opinion there are some comments for your consideration before the final publication:

comments to the line 236: The change in mobility under the influence of soil acidity applies to Al, but also to other trace metals. For example, The availability and mobility of Cu and Zn will increase in low pH environments due to the chemical form in which these metals are present in the soil solutions. Maybe it's enough to add this trace metal to the list with the rest, then?

line 401: Szelecz et al. (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.02.03 observed a decrease in soil pH (in effect, acidification) under the influence of decomposing Sus scrofa carcasses. A study by Fancher et al. (2017) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.08.002 did not conclusively demonstrate that decomposition of human cadavers decreases soil pH. The results were divergent. Barton et al. (2020) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12024-020-00297-2 in a study compared the decomposition of human and pig cadavers. The effect of cadaver decomposition, regardless of species, affected changes in soil pH levels in a similar way. In my opinion, it is difficult to determine a clear trend here.

line 446: In study of Cholewa et al (2018) DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111208, after about 200 days, the level of inorganic form of phosphorus (P2O5) in the soil with buried pig limbs differed from the control fields, as well as from each other (the depth of buried animal tissues was a differentiating factor).

line 477: Results of Cholewa et al (2018) DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111208 confirm that it was the same with potassium. Plants growing at the site where the pigs' limbs were buried did not have higher levels of K, although there was more of it in the soil - perhaps the plants are not responsible for its loss (as well as for the loss of Na, as demonstrated by the authors of the reviewed paper).

line 517: Was the drop in Ca levels related to the appearance of adipocere? Fiedler et al. (2004) suggested that the calcium was bound in adipocere. Fiedler, Schneckenberger, & Graw, Characterization of Soils Containing Adipocere. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 47, 561–568 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-004-3237-4

********** 

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 1

Victoria E Gibbon

30 May 2023

Soil elemental changes during human decomposition

PONE-D-23-02805R1

Dear Dr. DeBruyn,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Victoria E. Gibbon

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Victoria E Gibbon

4 Jun 2023

PONE-D-23-02805R1

Soil elemental changes during human decomposition

Dear Dr. DeBruyn:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof Victoria E. Gibbon

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. X-ray diffractograms of clay minerals.

    Treatments (K+ saturated at 25°C, K+ saturated at 300°C, K+ saturated at 550°C, Mg2+ saturated, and Mg2+ with glycol saturated) are shown for soils originating from two separate ARF locations (A and B) having no previous decomposition activity. Clay minerals are identified by d-spacing in nm.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. Elemental concentrations in soil during human decomposition.

    Selected elements are those that occur in greatest abundance in the human body and are listed in approximate order of percentage found in the human body from greatest to least. Data are means ± standard deviations for n = 3 replicate donors. Impacted soils that significantly differ from controls based upon Welch T-tests (p < 0.05) are presented in bold type. Asterisks indicate levels of significance: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Results of Welch T-tests between decomposition-impacted soils and controls.

    Welch T-tests assuming unequal sample variances were conducted at each sampling time point in order to compare differences between impacted soils and controls for pH, electrical conductivity (EC), calcium (Ca), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), sulfur (S), sodium (Na), magnesium (Mg), Iron (Fe), copper (Cu), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), selenium (Se), cobalt (Co), boron, (B), and aluminum (Al). P values are shown, and significant differences based upon p < 0.05 are presented in bold type. Asterisks indicate levels of significance: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Charge concentrations of exchangeable cations in soil during human decomposition.

    Charge concentrations (μmolc gdw-1) of exchangeable cations (Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+) in controls and decomposition-impacted soils are shown for the entire study. Data are means ± standard deviations for n = 3 replicate donors.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table. Trace elemental concentrations in soil during human decomposition.

    With the exception of Aluminum (Al), selected elements are those that occur in trace abundance in the human body and are listed in approximate order of percentage found in the human body from greatest to least. Aluminosilicates are common to East Tennessee soils, and Al is included in order to demonstrate increased mobility in soil under decreased pH found in decomposition. Data are means ± standard deviations for n = 3 replicate donors. Impacted soils that significantly differ from controls based upon Welch T-tests (p < 0.05) are presented in bold type. Asterisks indicate levels of significance: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File. Raw data for this study.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE_D_23_02805 Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data can be found as a dataset in the Supporting Information files and in the github repository: https://github.com/jdebruyn/SPOT-soilelements.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES