Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
30 April 2025 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo Supplied
Dr Palesa Mohajane
Dr Palesa Mohajane, scientist production at the Department of Water and Sanitation, received her PhD from the UFS for her research on the impact of pandemic-related burials on groundwater quality.

Dr Palesa Mohajane, a scientist production at the Department of Water and Sanitation in Hartbeespoort, was recently awarded her doctoral degree at the University of the Free State’s (UFS) autumn graduation ceremony. Her thesis, titled Modelling the effect of pandemic-induced burials on groundwater contamination: a hydrogeological and epidemiological assessment, looks at the impact of increased burial rates on groundwater quality.

 

Safeguarding groundwater resources

Dr Mohajane explains that witnessing the dramatic rise in burial rates during the COVID-19 pandemic – including instances of mass burials – and the resulting strain on cemeteries, raised concerns about the potential risk of groundwater contamination. This became a motivator for her research.

Her study bridges the gap between environmental science and epidemiology, developing tools to predict how disease outbreaks and related deaths can impact groundwater systems. “By focusing on this intersection, the study contributes knowledge that informs not only responsible cemetery management, but also the protection of groundwater resources important to public health,” she says.

Dr Mohajane highlights the environmental risks that come with an increase in burial activity during pandemics. “When death rates rise sharply, cemeteries experience a surge in burials, which accelerates decomposition within confined spaces. As bodies decompose, they release organic and inorganic pollutants, which can seep through geological layers and affect groundwater quality.”

She notes that if cemeteries are established without proper hydrogeological assessments, these substances can infiltrate the soil and contaminate water sources, posing a threat to both environmental and human health.

 

Using advanced tools to predict groundwater pollution

Dr Mohajane conducted her research during the post-pandemic period when the longer-term environmental effects of COVID-19-related burial practices began to surface. “Groundwater sampling and quality testing were conducted between September 2023 and January 2024. This period provided a suitable time frame to monitor contaminant release and assess the hydrochemical effects of the burial practices,” she explains.

Langberg Cemetery was selected as a case study due to its representative geological and human-made characteristics, making it a strong candidate for validating the research models. “This site allowed for real-world testing of the mathematical models and simulations, offering important insights into how contaminants move through soil and rock layers and impact groundwater,” says Dr Mohajane.

Her findings revealed that groundwater contamination is influenced by multiple interacting factors – including burial depth, body mass, and geological features. She explains that shallower burials allow pollutants to reach the water table more rapidly, while deeper burials may delay but not prevent eventual leaching. Larger body masses produce more decomposing material, increasing the number of pollutants released. Geological conditions such as fractures and varied rock formations also play a role in the spread of contaminants.

Dr Mohajane’s work has serious implications for both public health and water sustainability. The presence of elevated levels of total dissolved solids, electrical conductivity, specific ions, alkalinity, and mineralisation indicates potential health hazards. As groundwater is an important source of drinking water, she stresses the urgency of addressing these risks. “We need to use advanced tools to predict and prevent groundwater pollution before it occurs. With proper water management systems, we can reduce the environmental impact of pandemics,” she says.

She also emphasises the importance of continuous monitoring to detect pollutant levels that exceed safety limits. “Improving burial practices – including thorough geological assessments before establishing cemeteries and optimising burial depths – can help reduce contaminant migration. These measures are important to protect community water resources,” she adds.

 

Measures to protect groundwater and public health

Dr Mohajane’s research proposes a range of practical measures to safeguard groundwater and public health. Cemeteries should only be developed after detailed geological evaluations, and clear regulations must guide cemetery design to manage increased burial needs during pandemics. Regular water quality monitoring using modern detection tools is key, along with the inclusion of environmental assessments in public health planning.

“These policy measures, if adopted at both regional and national levels, can help to reduce the risk of groundwater pollution and support long-term public health,” she says.

Ultimately, this research supports South Africa’s efforts to protect its groundwater by encouraging collaboration between scientists and policy makers. It offers predictive tools, evidence-based guidelines for sustainable cemetery management, and highlights how scientific research can shape practical, effective policies. The goal is to ensure that groundwater remains a safe and secure resource during future public health and environmental crises.

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept