ReviewThe Science of the total environment2022
Potential SARS-CoV-2 contamination of groundwater as a result of mass burial: A mini-review.
Review in The Science of the total environment, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microbiological and decomposition analysis of mass mink burial sites during the COVID-19 pandemic.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Disgust sensitivity and psychopathic behavior: A narrative review.Translational neuroscience · 2024Review
- Presence and persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in aquatic environments: A mini-review.Current opinion in environmental science & health · 2022Review
- One-Year Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 Virus in Natural and Drinking Water.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recent COVID-19 disease has highlighted the need for further research around the risk to human health and the environment because of mass burial of COVID-19 victims. Despite SARS-CoV-2 being an enveloped virus, which is highly susceptible to environmental conditions (temperature, solar/UV exposure). This review provides insight into the potential of SARS-CoV-2 to contaminate groundwater through burial sites, the impact of various types of burial practices on SARS-CoV-2 survival, and current knowledge gaps that need to be addressed to ensure that humans and ecosystems are adequately protected from SARS-CoV-2. Data available shows temperature is still likely to be the driving factor when it comes to survival and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2. Research conducted at cemetery sites globally using various bacteriophages (MS2, PRD1, faecal coliforms) and viruses (TGEV, MHV) as surrogates for pathogenic enteric viruses to study the fate and transport of these viruses showed considerable contamination of groundwater, particularly where there is a shallow vadose zone and heterogeneous structures are known to exist with very low residence times. In addition, changes in solution chemistry (e.g., decrease in ionic strength or increase in pH) during rainfall events produces large pulses of released colloids that can result in attached viruses becoming remobilised, with implications for groundwater contamination. Viruses cannot spread unaided through the vadose zone. Since groundwater is too deep to be in contact with the interred body and migration rates are very slow, except where preferential flow paths are known to exist, the groundwater table will not be significantly impacted by contamination from SARS-CoV-2. When burial takes place using scientifically defensible methods the possibility of infection will be highly improbable. Furthermore, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has helped us to prepare for other eventualities such as natural disasters where mass fatalities and subsequently burials may take place in a relatively short space of time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.