The Influence of Soil Environment Type on Postmortem Tissue Changes: A History of Scientific Inquiry

Introduction. Accurate determination of the late postmortem interval remains a challenge in forensics. Decomposition is driven by complex factors, with soil type being particularly critical as it dictates the rate and nature of tissue degradation. This study highlights the need to refine postmortem interval estimation methods by better accounting for the specific soil environment, as current techniques often produce unreliable results due to insufficient consideration of the soil substrate.

The purpose of the work is to conduct a comprehensive historical and scientific analysis and systematization of current data on the impact of different soil environments on the nature and dynamics of postmortem tissue changes, as well as to identify current challenges in research on postmortem transformations of tissues.

Materials and methods. A systematic review of publications from international (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) and Russian (eLibrary.ru, CyberLeninka) databases covering the period from 1940 to 2025 was conducted. The analysis included original studies, reviews, meta-analyses, and monographs addressing postmortem changes in various soil conditions. 

1. Franceschetti L, Amadasi A, Bugelli V, Bolsi G, Tsokos M. Estimation of late postmortem interval: Where do we stand? A literature review. Biology. 2023;12(6):783. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12060783.

2. Lavrukova OS, Polyakov AY, Beraya RF. Modern ideas about the staging of decomposition and the possibilities of forensic medical reconstruction of the conditions of the post-mortem period. Bulletin of Saint Petersburg University. Medicine. 2023;18(4):385–396. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu11.2023.404.

3. Dolgova OB, Romodanovsky PO. Historical prerequisites for the formation of a quality control system for forensic medical examinations. Ural Medical Journal. 2023;22(3):145–155. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.52420/2071-5943-2023-22-3-145-155.

4. Ostanin DV, Dolgova OB, Nozhkina NV, Loktionov KP. The historical evolution of the legal regulation of the examination of a corpse at the scene. Ural Medical Journal. 2025;24(5):98–115. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.52420/umj.24.5.98.

5. Ostanin DV, Dolgova OB, Nozhkina NV, Loktionov KP. The improvement of the activities of forensic experts during the examination of the crime scene based on digital technologies. Ural Medical Journal. 2025;24(6):19–29. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.52420/umj.24.6.19.

6. Wescott DJ. Recent advances in forensic anthropology: Decomposition research. Forensic Sciences Research. 2018;3(4):327–342. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20961790.2018.1488571.

7. Magni PA, Lawn Jessica, Guareschi EE. A practical review of adipocere: Key findings, case studies and operational considerations from crime scene to autopsy. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. 2021;78:102–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2020.102109.

8. Lanzinger N, Verhoff MA, Birngruber CG, Lutz L. Factors influencing the progression of post-mortem changes between scene and autopsy. Scientific Reports. 2026;16(1):1950. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-35786-x.

9. Lavrukova OS, Lyabzina SN, Prikhodko AN, Sidorova NA, Basalaev KV. On the issue of studying decomposition of carcasses. Journal of Biomedical Technologies. 2016;(1):16–23. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.15393/j6.art.2016.3482.

10. Teo CH, Hing HL, Hamzah NH, Hamzah SPAA. The effect of different coverings on total body score development of buried carcasses. The Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences. 2021;28 (4):103–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21315/mjms2021.28.4.11.

11. Nkhoma TB, Rakopoulou GD, Fortney SH, Wescott DJ, Spradley KM, Dadour IR. A synopsis of two decades of arthropod related research at the forensic anthropology research facility (FARF), Texas State University (TXST), San Marcos, Texas, USA. Insects. 2025;16(9):897. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16090897.

12. Baldino G, Mondello C, Sapienza D, Stassi C, Asmundo A, Gualniera P, et al. Multidisciplinary forensic approach in “complex” bodies: Systematic review and procedural proposal. Diagnostics. 2023;13(2):310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13020310.

13. Mustafina GR, Kuznetsov KO, Kosobutskaya SA, Sokolovskiy MA, Semenova AI, Korotun VN. Innovative strategies for estimating the postmortem interval in forensic practice: Multiomics, artificial intelligence, and hybrid models (a review). Russian Journal of Forensic Medicine. 2025;11(3):276–288. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/fm16307.

14. Kitova AO. Mummification in ancient Egypt: History of study and modern research methods. Egypt and Neighbouring Countries. 2016;(4):31–41. (In Russ.). EDN: https://elibrary.ru/YPLVFD.

15. Kitov EP, Beisenov AZ. Skulls with trepanations from the early iron age mounds of Saryarka. Moscow University Anthropology Bulletin. 2015;(1):37–48. (In Russ.). EDN: https://elibrary.ru/TMEWTX.

16. Petrov VI, Panteleeva NV. Forensic medicine: The history of its formation as an applied science in law enforcement practice. Military Medicine. 2020;(3):71–73. (In Russ.). EDN: https://elibrary.ru/KSNQCW.

17. Izutkin DA. The history of the formation of the foundations of scientific anatomy. Medical Almanac. 2017;47(2):38–41. (In Russ.). EDN: https://elibrary.ru/YQECKX.

18. Pashinyan GA, Barinov EK, Romodanovsky PO. The role of I.V. Buyalsky in the development of forensic medicine in Russia. Problems of Medical Expertise. 2001;1(3–3):39–42. (In Russ.). EDN: https://elibrary.ru/ONJRIN.

19. Baliso A, Heathfieald LJ, Gibbon EV. Informing regional taphonomy research using retrospective forensic anthropology cases in the Western Cape, South Africa. Science and Justice — Journal of the Forensic Science Society. 2023;63(2):164–172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2022.12.003.

20. Klotzbach H, Krettek R, Bratzke H, Puschel K, Zehner R, Amendt J. The history of forensic entomology in German-speaking countries. Forensic Science International. 2004;144(2–3):259–263. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.04.062.

21. Behrensmeyer AK, Kidwell SM. Taphonomy’s contributions to paleobiology. Paleobiology. 1985;11(1):105– 119. Available from: https://clck.ru/3RAbLE (accessed 30 December 2025).

22. Aparin BP. V. V. Dokuchaev’s natural science paradigm. Live and Bio-Abiotic Systems. 2016;(16):1. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/WZTKMV.

23. Rudden S. Body farms: A field of opportunity. COMPASS: The Student Anthropology Journal of Alberta. 2023;3(2):119–132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29173/comp75.

24. Byard RW. Body farms — characteristics and contributions. Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology. 2017;13(4):473–474. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-017-9912-3.

25. Varlert V, Charles J, Forbes SL, Grabherr S. Revolution in death sciences: Body farms and taphonomics blooming. A review investigating the advantages, ethical and legal aspects in a Swiss context. International Journal of Legal Medicine. 2020;134(5):1875–1895. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-020-02272-6.

26. Campobasso CP, Vella GD, Introna F. Factors affecting decomposition and diptera colonization. Forensic Science International. 2001;120(1–2):18–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0379-0738(01)00411-x.

27. Wydra J, Smaga L, Matuszewski S. Interval estimation of thermal summation parameters in forensically important insects. Scientific Reports. 2025;15(1):36038. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-19926-3.

28. Metcalf JL, Xu ZZ, Weiss S, Lax S, Teuren WV, Hyde ER, et al. Microbial community assembly and metabolic function during mammalian corpse decomposition. Science. 2016;351(6269):158–162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad2646.

29. Connor M, Baigent C, Hansen ES. Measuring desiccation using qualitative changes: A step toward determining regional decomposition sequences. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2019;64(4):1004–1011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14003.

30. Aitkenhead-Peterson JA, Owings CG, Alexander MB, Larison N, Bytheway JA. Mapping the lateral extent of human cadaver decomposition with soil chemistry. Forensic Science International. 2012;216(1–3):127– 134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.09.007.

31. Megyesi MS, Nawrocki SP, Haskell NH. Using accumulated degree-days to estimate the postmortem interval from decomposed human remains. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2005;50(3):618–626. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/10.1520/JFS2004017.

32. Bauer A, Bauer AM, Tomberlin JK. Impact of diet moisture on the development of the forensically important blow fly Cochliomyia macellaria (Fabricius) (Diptera: Calliphoridae). Forensic Science International. 2020;312:110333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110333.

33. Strete G, Salcudean A, Cozma AA, Radu CC. Current understanding and future research direction for estimating the postmortem interval: A systematic review. Diagnostics. 2025;15(15):1954. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15151954.

34. Carter DO, Orimoto A, Gutierrez CA, Ribereau-Gayon A, Pecsi EL, Perrault KA, et al. A synthesis of carcass decomposition studies conducted at a tropical (Aw) taphonomy facility: 2013–2022. Forensic Science International. Synergy. 2023;7:100–345. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2023.100345.

35. Bachmann A, Simmons T. The influence of preburial insect access on the decomposition rate. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2010;55(4):893–900. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01403.x.

36. Troutman L, Moffatt C, Simmons T. A preliminary examination of differential decomposition patterns in mass graves. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2014;59(3):621–626. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1556- 4029.12388.

37. Carter DO, Yellowlees D, Tibbett M. Cadaver decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Die Naturwissenswchaften. 2007;94(1):12–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-006-0159-1.

38. Fiedler S, Graw M. Decomposition of buried corpses, with special reference to the formation of adipocere. Die Naturwissenswchaften. 2003;90(7):291–300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-003-0437-0.

39. Anderson GS. Comparison of decomposition rates and faunal colonization of carrion in indoor and outdoor environments. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2011;56(1):136–142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01539.x.

40. Ceciliason AS, Andersson MG, Anders L, Sandler H. Quantifying human decomposition in an indoor setting and implications for postmortem interval estimation. Forensic Science International. 2018;283:180–189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.12.026.

41. Hyde ER, Haarmann DP, Lynne AM, Bucheli SR, Petrosino JF. The living dead: Bacterial community structure of a cadaver at the onset and end of the bloat stage of decomposition. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e77733. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077733.

42. Miles KL, Finaugthy DA, Gibbon VE. A review of experimental design in forensic taphonomy: Moving towards forensic realism. Forensic Science Research. 2020;5(4):249–259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20961790.2020.1792631.

43. Pecsi EL, Forbes S, Guillemette F. Organic matter composition as a driver of soil bacterial responses to pig carcass decomposition in a Canadian continental climate. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences. 2024;129(12):e2024JG008355. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JG008355.

44. Tkhakakhov AA. On the classification and terminology of cadaveric phenomena. Russian Journal of Forensic Medicine. 2021;7(4):45–50. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/fm413.

45. Pittner S, Bugelli V, Benbow ME, Ehrenfellner B, Zissler A, Campobasso CP, et al. The applicability of forensic time since death estimation methods for buried bodies in advanced decomposition stages. Public Library of Science One. 2020;15(12):e0243395. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243395.

46. Singh B, Minick KJ, Strickland MS, Wickings KG, Crippen TL, Tarone AM, et al. Temporal and spatial impact of human cadaver decomposition on soil bacterial and arthropod community structure and function. Frontiers of Microbiology. 2018;8:2616. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.02616.

47. Carter DO, Yellowlees D, Tibbett M. Moisture can be the dominant environmental parameter governing cadaver decomposition in soil. Forensic Science International. 2010;200(1–3):60–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.03.031.

48. Fiedler S, Schnekenberger K, Graw M. Characterization of soils containing adipocere. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 2004;47(4):561–568. DOI: https://10.1007/s00244-004-3237-4.

49. Trubina VA. Biological materials: Ownership issues. practice of foreign countries. Legislation. 2017;(5):80– 86. (In Russ.). EDN: https://elibrary.ru/ZWLYCP.

50. Brooks J, Jantzi A, Brown K, Birch W, Nijeholt LLA, Rogers C, et al. Establishing a Pan-European, multi-disciplinary taphonomic research infrastructure: The ‘UK-Netherlands decomposition experimental research (UNDER) Group’. Science and Justice — Journal of the Forensic Science Society. 2025;65(1):62–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2024.12.007.

51. Oostra RJ, Gelderman T, Groen WJM, Uiterdijk HG, Cammeraat ELH, Krap T, et al. Amsterdam Research Initiative for Sub-surface Taphonomy and Anthropology (ARISTA) — a taphonomic research facility in the Netherlands for the study of human remains. Forensic Science International. 2020;317:110483. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110483.

52. Black S. Body farms. Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology. 2017;13(4):475–476. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-017-9917-y.

53. Cattaneo C, Maderna E, Rendinelli A, Gibelli D. Animal experimentation in forensic sciences: How far have we come? Forensic Science International. 2015;254:29–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.06.024.

54. Dawson BM, Barton PS, Wallman JF. Contrasting insect activity and decomposition of pigs and humans in an Australian environment: A preliminary study. Forensic Science International. 2020;316:110515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110515.

55. Dawson BM, Wallman JF, Barton PS. How does mass loss compare with total body score when assessing decomposition of human and pig cadavers? Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology. 2022;18(3):343–351. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-022-00481-65.

56. 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. Frontiers of Microbiology. 2021;11:608–856. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.608856.

57. Tynan P. The integration and implications of artificial intelligence in forensic science. Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology. 2024;20(3):1103–1105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-023-00772-6.

58. Dolgova OB, Yakimova YG, Sayler PA, Kondrashov DL, Shabunina-Basok NR. Applications of neural networks in forensic medicine. Ural Medical Journal. 2025;24(6):120–135. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.52420/umj.24.6.120.

59. Kokin AV. Forensic expertise in the era of the fourth industrial revolution (Industry 4.0). Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2021;16(2):29–36. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2021-2-29-36.

60. Hmyz AI. Using the power of artificial intelligence in judicial expertise. Bulletin of Economic Security. 2022; (5):224–227. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.24412/2414-3995-2022-5-224-227.

61. Schoenly KG, Haskell NH, Hall RD, Gbur JR. Comparative performance and complementarity of four sampling methods and arthropod preference tests from human and porcine remains at the forensic anthropology center in Knoxville, Tennessee. Journal of Medical Entomology. 2007;44(5):881–894. DOI: https://doi.org/1603/0022-2585(2007)44[881:cpacof]2.0.co;2.

62. Berhardt V, Schomerus C, Verhoff MA, Amendt J. Of pigs and men-comparing the development of Calliphora vicina (Diptera: Calliphoridae) on human and porcine tissue. International Journal of Legal Medicine. 2017;131(3):847–853. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-016-1487-0.

63. Pechal JL, Crippen TL, Benbow ME, Tarone AM, Tomberlin JK. The potential use of bacterial community succession in forensics as described by high throughput metagenomic sequencing. International Journal of Legal Medicine. 2014;128(1):193–205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-013-0872-1.

64. Bray SK, Conlan XA, Harvey ML. Decomposition of partially submerged remains: A study on the reliability of insect colonisation for PMI/PMSI estimation. Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology. 2024;21:532–538. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-024-00871-y.

65. Matuszewski S, Fratczak K, Konwerski S, Bajerlein D, Szpila K, Jarmusz M, et al. Effect of body mass and clothing on carrion entomofauna. International Journal of Legal Medicine. 2016;130(1):221–232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-015-1145-y.

66. Matuszewski S, Hall MJR, Moreau G, Schoenly KG, Tarone AM, Villet MH. Pigs vs people: The use of pigs as analogues for humans in forensic entomology and taphonomy research. International Journal of Legal Medicine. 2020;134(2):793–810. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-019-02074-5.

67. Dawson BM, Ueland M, Carter DO, Mclntyre D, Barton PS. Bridging the gap between decomposition theory and forensic research on postmortem interval. International Journal of Legal Medicine. 2024;138(2):509–518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-023-03060-8.

68. Ikpa, J, Umana U, Timbuak J, Obun C, Ema E, Omuh M. The concept of forensic taphonomy: Understanding the postmortem processes of dead remains. Journal of Experimental and Clinical Anatomy. 2024;21(2):409– 417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/jeca.v21i2.36.