International and domestic approaches to the assessment of cemetery soils in various natural-climatic zones (literature review)

Death is inseparable from the functioning of the biosphere and demonstrates its inherent connection to the presence of humanity on Earth. According to data from the end of 2024, with a total global population of 8.156 billion people, the average daily number of recorded deaths is 170,463, which amounts to 7,103 deaths per hour. An analysis of urbanized areas, which are home to 4.42 billion people, revealed a direct correlation between urban development and the management of burial sites. A historical retrospective shows that urban agglomerations, which have existed for millennia, have traditionally served as sites for interment. Currently, the territories of former burial grounds are used mainly as permanent burial zones, converted into park areas or built-up areas with green spaces. A study of the soil cover in the aforementioned territories revealed specific characteristics due to their original purpose and subsequent land-use transformations. All soils at burial sites are classified as necrosols and are characterized by the following features: turbation of the soil profile, enrichment of deeper soil horizons with phosphorus and carbon, deep mixing of the soil, and the presence of various artifacts and burial remains. In modern soil classification, there is no place for those soils that, after being used for burials, are utilized within built-up areas; they can only be characterized as “technogenic” or “other soils” without indicating the presence of former graves.

This article provides a review of foreign and Russian literature devoted to the study of cemetery soils, aiming to classify them according to their degree of impact on the environment and public health. The study did not include soils used for burial sites after the cremation of the bodies of the deceased in a crematorium or for burial sites in family vaults.

Contribution:
Ushakova O.V. – research concept and design, writing, editing;
Rakhmanin Yu.A. – research concept, editing;
Evseeva I.S. – research concept and design, collection of material and data processing, writing, editing;
Ibragimova S.Sh. – writing, editing.
All authors are responsible for the integrity of all parts of the manuscript and approval of the manuscript final version.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding. The study was carried out as part of the State assignment.

Received: November 13, 2025 / Accepted: December 2, 2025 / Published: January 15, 2026

1. World Population Prospects 2022. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. UN DESA/POP/2022/DC/NO. 9. New York; 2022.

2. Kaneda T., Greenbaum C., Haub C. World Population Data Sheet. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau; 2022. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, World Population Prospects: The 2022 Revision. New York: United Nations; 2022.

3. Uslu A., Baris E., Erdogan E. Ecological concerns over cemeteries. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2009; 4(13): 1505–11.

4. Zelinsky W. Gathering places for America’s dead: How many, where, and why? Prof. Geogr. 1994; 46(1): 29–38.

5. Stevens J. Graveyards of the Contiguous USA. Joshua Stevens; 2018. Available at: https://www.joshuastevens.net/blog/graveyards-of-the-contiguous-usa/

6. Cemeteries in the city plan. Information Report No. 16. July 1950. PAS Report 16; 1950. Available at: https://www.planning.org/pas/reports/report16.htm

7. Friedhöfe im Wandel der Zeit. Deutscher Städte- und Gemeindebund Dokumentation No. 164; 2021. Available at: https://dstgb.de/publikationen/dokumentationen/nr-164-zukunft-kommunaler-friedhoefe/nr.-164-zukunft-kommunaler-friedhoefe.pdf?cid=l3s

8. Flächennutzung. Bodenfläche insgesamt nach Nutzungsarten in Deutschland. Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis); 2023. Available at: https://destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Landwirtschaft-Forstwirtschaft-Fischerei/Flaechennutzung/Tabellen/bodenflaeche-insgesamt.html

9. Land use; all categories, municipalities. Statistics Netherlands; 2017. Available at: https://cbs.nl/en-gb/figures/detail/70262ENG

10. Service of the Republic of Poland. Digitization of cemeteries. Results of a survey conducted in municipalities XI-XII 2020; 2023. Available at: https://gov.pl/web/cyfryzacjamiejscpamieci/sytuacja-polskich-cmentarzy--wyniki-ankiety

11. Developments and Forecasts on Continuing Urbanisation. Urbanisation worldwide. European Commission; 2020. Available at: https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/foresight/topic/continuing-urbanisation/developments-and-forecasts-on-continuing-urbanisation_en

12. Scalenghe R., Pantani O.L. Connecting existing cemeteries saving good soils (for livings). Sustainability. 2019; 12(1): 93.

13. National Funeral Directors Association. Statistics. NFDA; 2022. Available at: https://nfda.org/news/statistics

14. NFDA Cremation & Burial Report. National Funeral Directors Association. Brookfield, WI; 2022.

15. Długozima A., Rej M. Contemporary trends in European cemeteries design. Space Form. 2014; 21: 403–16.

16. Lauwers M. The birth of the cemetery: sacred places and land of the dead in the medieval West. Volume 1. Campinas: EdUnicamp; 2015.

17. Zhang M., Ma L., Li W., Chen B., Jia J. Genetic characteristics and taxonomic classification of Fimic Anthrosols in China. Geoderma. 2003; 115(1–2): 31–44.

18. Neckel A., Costa C., Mario D.N., Sabadin C.E.S., Bodah E.T. Environmental damage and public health threat caused by cemeteries: A proposal of ideal cemeteries for the growing urban sprawl. Urbe. Rev. Bras. Gest. Urbana. 2022; 14: e20210135.

19. Grabalov P., Nordh H. The future of urban cemeteries as public spaces: Insights from Oslo and Copenhagen. Plan. Theory Pract. 2022; 23(1): 81–98.

20. Van den Breemer R. Governing cemeteries: state responses to the new diversity in the Netherlands, Norway and France. Ser. Diss. Fac. Theol. Univ. Oslo Acta Theol. 2019; 75: 329.

21. Explore the fourteen Cemeteries of Paris. French Moments; 2023. Available at: https://frenchmoments.eu/cemeteries-of-paris/

22. Van Haaren F.W.J. Churchyards as sources for water pollution. Moorman’s Periodieke Pers. 1951; 35(16): 167–72.

23. Forbes G.B. Human Body Composition; Growth, Aging, Nutrition, and Activity. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1987.

24. Mann J., Truswell A.S. Essentials of Human Nutrition. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002.

25. Lins E.A.M., Lins A.S.B.M. Evaluation of environmental impacts generated by cemetery in pandemic period: Case study. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Res. 2020; 5(3): 16–20.

26. Cao S., Zhao X., Wang L., Wang B., Chen Y., Duan X. Body Weight, Highlights of the Chinese Exposure Factors Handbook (Adults). Academic Press; 2015: 53–4.

27. Fogli G. Techniques of decomposition of Bodies Adopted in Cemeteries and Their Relations with the Environment; 2004.

28. Helmenstine A.M. Elemental Composition of the Human Body by Mass; 2019.

29. Lins E., Lins M., Lins C. Negative environmental impacts generated by cemetery: Case study. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Res. 2019; 4: 16–9.

30. Cauduro F., Müller C.R., da Silva Ricardo G. Problem of Brazilian cemeteries and environment-review of studies. Holos Environment. 2019; 19(4): 515–27. https://doi.org/10.14295/holos.v19i4.12341

31. Barbieri R., Texier G., Keller C., Drancourt M. Soil salinity and aridity specify plague foci in the United States of America. Sci. Rep. 2020; 10(1): 6186. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63211-4

32. Spyrou M.A., Musralina L., Gnecchi Ruscone G.A., Kocher A., Borbone P.G., Khartanovich V.I., et al. The source of the Black Death in fourteenth-century central Eurasia. Nature. 2022; 606(7915): 718–24. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04800-3

33. Dippenaar M.A., Olivier J. Section A. Introduction. In: Dippenaar M.A., Olivier J., Lorentz S., Ubomba-Jaswa E., Abia A.L.K., Diamond R.E., eds. Environmental Risk Assessment, Monitoring and Management of Cemeteries. Report to the Water Research Commission. WRC Report No. 2449/1/18; 2018: 1–8.

34. Dippenaar M.A., Brouwers B. Section D. Engineering and geotechnics. In: Dippenaar M.A., Olivier J., Lorentz S., Ubomba-Jaswa E., Abia A.L.K., Diamond R.E., eds. Environmental Risk Assessment, Monitoring and Management of Cemeteries. Report to the Water Research Commission. WRC Report No. 2449/1/18; 2018: 29–34.

35. Ford T.E. Microbiological safety of drinking water: United States and global perspectives. Environ. Health Perspect. 1999; 107(Suppl. 1): 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.99107s1191

36. Całkosiński I., Płoneczka-Janeczko K., Ostapska M., Dudek K., Gamian A., Rypuła K. Microbiological analysis of necrosols collected from urban cemeteries in Poland. Biomed. Res. Int. 2015; 2015: 169573. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/169573

37. Charzyński P., Bednarek R., Świtoniak M., Żołnowska B. Ekranic technosols and urbic technosols of Toruń necropolis. Geologija. 2011; 53(4): 179–85.

38. IUSS WG WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. In: International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps. Vienna: International Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS); 2022.

39. Smolik F. Pedology. Praha: Statni nakladetelstvi technicke literatury; 1957.

40. Svec F., Hlina J. Hygiene of Urban Communities. Praha: SNTL; 1978.

41. Graf A. Flora und vegetation der Friedhöfe in Berlin (West). Verh. Berl. Bot. Ver. 1986; 5: 1–210.

42. Burghardt W. Soils in urban and industrial environments. Z. Pflanzenernähr. Bodenkd. 1994; 157(3): 205–14.

43. Sobocka J. Urban soils vs. anthropogenic soils, their characterisctics and functions. Phytopedon. 2003; 2: 76–80.

44. Sobocká J. Necrosol as a new anthropogenic soil type. Soil Anthropization VII. Bratislava; 2004: 107–12.

45. Stroganova M., Myagkova A., Prokofieva T., Skvortsova I. Soils of Moscow and Urban Environment. Moscow: Lomonosov Moscow State University; 1998. https://elibrary.ru/tnalxn

46. Gerasimova M.I., Stroganova M., Mozharova N., Prokofieva T. Anthropogenic soils. Smolensk: Oecumene; 2003.

47. Prokofyeva T.V., Martynenko I.A., Ivannikov F.A. Classification of Moscow soils and parent materials and its possible inclusion in the classification system of Russian soils. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2011; 44(5): 561–71. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229311050127 https://elibrary.ru/ohqlcj

48. Valk H., Malve M., Juus T., Liblik M.A., Jonuks T. Kodavere medieval cemetery – a parish churchyard? Arheol. Välitööd Eestis. 2018: 119–38.

49. Morillas H., Marcaida I., Maguregui M., Upasen S., Gallego-Cartagena E., Madariaga J.M. Identification of metals and metalloids as hazardous elements in PM2.5 and PM10 collected in a coastal environment affected by diffuse contamination. J. Clean. Prod. 2019; 226: 369–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.063

50. Kortei N.K., Heymann M.E., Essuman E.K., Kpodo F.M., Akonor P.T., Lokpo S.Y., et al. Health risk assessment and levels of toxic metals in fishes (Oreochromis noliticus and Clarias anguillaris) from Ankobrah and Pra basins: Impact of illegal mining activities on food safety. Toxicol. Rep. 2020; 7: 360–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxrep.2020.02.011

51. Fu S.C., Liu J.M., Lee K.I., Tang F.C., Fang K.M., Yang C.Y., et al. Cr(VI) induces ROS-mediated mitochondrial-dependent apoptosis in neuronal cells via the activation of Akt/ERK/AMPK signaling pathway. Toxicol. In Vitro. 2020; 65: 104795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2020.104795

52. Li J., Song Y., Vogt R.D., Liu Y., Luo J., Li T. Bioavailability and cytotoxicity of Cerium-(IV), Copper-(II), and Zinc oxide nanoparticles to human intestinal and liver cells through food. Sci. Total Environ. 2020; 702: 134700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134700

53. Ucisik A.S., Rushbrook P. The impact of cemetaries on the environment and public health: an introductory briefing. Copenhagen; 1998.

54. Fiedler S., Dame T., Graw M. Do cemeteries emit drugs? A case study from southern Germany. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018; 25: 5393–400.

55. Fatta-Kassinos D., Hapeshi E., Achilleos A., Meric S., Gros M., Petrovic M., et al. Existence of pharmaceutical compounds in Tertiary treated urban wastewater that is utilized for reuse applications. Water Resour. Manag. 2011; 25: 1183–93.

56. Kleywegt S., Payne M., Raby M., Filippi D., Ng C.F., Fletcher T. The final discharge: Quantifying contaminants in embalming process effluents discharged to sewers in Ontario, Canada. Environ. Pollut. 2019; 252(Pt. B): 1476–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.06.036

57. Briffa J., Sinagra E., Blundell R. Heavy metal pollution in the environment and their toxicological effects on humans. Heliyon. 2020; 6(9): e04691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04691

58. Mordhorst A., Zimmermann I., Fleige H., Horn R. Environmental risk of (heavy) metal release from urns into cemetery soils. Sci. Total. Environ. 2022; 817: 152952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.152952

59. Chiappelli J., Chiappelli T. Drinking grandma: the problem of embalming. J. Environ. Health. 2008; 71(5): 24–8.

60. Valk H., Malve M., Juus T., Liblik M.A., Jonuks T. Kodavere medieval cemetery – a parish churchyard? Arheoloogilised Välitööd Eestis. 2018; 119–38.

61. Majgier L., Rahmonov O. Necrosols of cemeteries in Masurian Lakeland. In: Charzyński P., Hulisz P., Bednarek R., eds. Technogenic Soils of Poland. Toruń: Polish Society of Soil Science; 2013: 95–109.

62. Ushakova O.V., Rakhmanin Yu.A., Evseeva I.S. Risk factors for the occurring diseases associated with soil contamination among cemetery workers. Gigiena i Sanitaria (Hygiene and Sanitation, Russian journal). 2024; 103(10): 1155–9. https://doi.org/10.47470/0016-9900-2024-103-10-1155-1159 https://elibrary.ru/ogufni (in Russian)

63. Wescott D.J. Recent advances in forensic anthropology: decomposition research. Forensic Sci. Res. 2018; 3(4): 327–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/20961790.2018.1488571

64. Taylor L.S., Gonzalez A., Essington M.E., Lenaghan S.C., Stewart C.N., Mundorff A.Z., et al. Soil elemental changes during human decomposition. PLoS One. 2023; 18(6): e0287094. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287094

65. Vlasov A.Yu. Cadaveric phenomena (“life of a corpse”): part II. Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii. Ural’skii region. 2018; (3): 128–49. https://elibrary.ru/yujdch (in Russian)

66. Tumer A.R., Karacaoglu E., Namli A., Keten A., Farasat S., Akcan R., et al. Effects of different types of soil on decomposition: an experimental study. Leg. Med. (Tokyo). 2013; 15(3): 149–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.legalmed.2012.11.003

67. Franco D.S., Georgin J., Villarreal Campo L.A., Mayoral M.A., Goenaga J.O., Fruto C.M., et al. The environmental pollution caused by cemeteries and cremations: A review. Chemosphere. 2022; 307(Pt. 4): 136025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136025

68. Pawlett M., Rickson R.J., Niziolomski J., Churchill S., Kešner M. Human cadaver burial depth affects soil microbial and nutrient status. Archaeol. Environ. Forensic Sci. 2019; 1(2): 119–25. https://doi.org/10.1558/aefs.33662

69. Lutze A. Back in the cycle: A review of the taphonomy of biomineralised tissues: Diss. Perth; 2022. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11104.70408

70. Iancu L., Bonicelli A., Procopio N. Decomposition in an extreme cold environment and associated microbiome-prediction model implications for the postmortem interval estimation. Front. Microbiol. 2024; 15: 1392716. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1392716

71. Dautartas A., Kenyhercz M.W., Vidoli G.M., Meadows Jantz L., Mundorff A., Steadman D.W. Differential decomposition among pig, rabbit, and human remains. J. Forensic Sci. 2018; 63(6): 1673–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13784

72. Connor M., Baigent C., Hansen E.S. Testing the use of pigs as human proxies in decomposition studies. J. Forensic. Sci. 2018; 63(5): 1350–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13727

73. Ing T.K., Ismail N.A., Soon L.P. Taphonomic study of adult Susscrofa domestica in equatorial climate in Sarawak, Malaysia. Austin J. Forensic Sci. Criminol. 2017; 4(1): 1058.

74. Gunawardena S.A., Abeyratne P., Jayasena A., Rajapaksha S., Senadhipathi H., Siriwardana D., et al. Retrospective analysis of factors affecting rate of skeletonization within a tropical climate. Sci. Justice. 2023; 63(5): 638–50.

75. Khalikov A.A., Kildyushov E.M., Kuznetsov K.O., Rahmatullina G.R. Estimation of time since death with the postmortem microbiome: a modern view and approaches to solving the problem. Sudebno-meditsinskaya ekspertiza. 2022; 65(3): 49–53. https://doi.org/10.17116/sudmed20226503149 https://elibrary.ru/tqgzhp (in Russian)