Literature DB >> 29284073

Testing the Use of Pigs as Human Proxies in Decomposition Studies.

Melissa Connor1, Christiane Baigent1, Eriek S Hansen2.   

Abstract

Pigs are a common human analogue in taphonomic study, yet data comparing the trajectory of decomposition between the two groups are lacking. This study compared decomposition rate and gross tissue change in 17 pigs and 22 human remains placed in the Forensic Investigation Research Station in western Colorado between 2012 and 2015. Accumulated degree days (ADD) were used to assess the number of thermal units required to reach a given total body score (TBS) (1) which was used as the measure of decomposition. A comparison of slopes in linear mixed effects model indicated that decomposition rates significantly differed between human donors and pig remains χ2(1) = 5.662, p = 0.017. Neither the pig nor the human trajectory compared well to the TBS model. Thus, (i) pigs are not an adequate proxy for human decomposition studies, and (ii) in the semiarid environment of western Colorado, there is a need to develop a regional decomposition model.
© 2017 American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

Entities:  

Keywords:  animal models; decomposition; forensic science; human proxies; taphonomy

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29284073     DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.13727

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Forensic Sci        ISSN: 0022-1198            Impact factor:   1.832


  6 in total

1.  How does mass loss compare with total body score when assessing decomposition of human and pig cadavers?

Authors:  Blake M Dawson; James F Wallman; Philip S Barton
Journal:  Forensic Sci Med Pathol       Date:  2022-05-11       Impact factor: 2.456

2.  Insect abundance patterns on vertebrate remains reveal carrion resource quality variation.

Authors:  Blake M Dawson; James F Wallman; Maldwyn J Evans; Philip S Barton
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2022-03-16       Impact factor: 3.298

3.  The applicability of forensic time since death estimation methods for buried bodies in advanced decomposition stages.

Authors:  Stefan Pittner; Valentina Bugelli; M Eric Benbow; Bianca Ehrenfellner; Angela Zissler; Carlo P Campobasso; Roelof-Jan Oostra; Maurice C G Aalders; Richard Zehner; Lena Lutz; Fabio C Monticelli; Christian Staufer; Katharina Helm; Vilma Pinchi; Joseph P Receveur; Janine Geißenberger; Peter Steinbacher; Jens Amendt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-12-09       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Comparative Decomposition of Humans and Pigs: Soil Biogeochemistry, Microbial Activity and Metabolomic Profiles.

Authors:  Jennifer M DeBruyn; Katharina M Hoeland; Lois S Taylor; Jessica D Stevens; Michelle A Moats; Sreejata Bandopadhyay; Stephen P Dearth; Hector F Castro; Kaitlin K Hewitt; Shawn R Campagna; Angela M Dautartas; Giovanna M Vidoli; Amy Z Mundorff; Dawnie W Steadman
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2021-01-13       Impact factor: 5.640

Review 5.  A review of experimental design in forensic taphonomy: moving towards forensic realism.

Authors:  Kelly L Miles; Devin A Finaughty; Victoria E Gibbon
Journal:  Forensic Sci Res       Date:  2020-08-13

6.  Perspectives on the establishment of a canadian human taphonomic facility: The experience of REST[ES].

Authors:  Emily L Pecsi; Gilles Bronchti; Frank Crispino; Shari L Forbes
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Synerg       Date:  2020-09-08
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.