Dataset Information

Did the September 2010 (Darfield) earthquake trigger the February 2011 (Christchurch) event?

ABSTRACT: We have investigated the possible cause-and-effect relationship due to stress transfer between two earthquakes that occurred near Christchurch, New Zealand, in September 2010 and in February 2011. The Mw 7.1 Darfield (Canterbury) event took place along a previously unrecognized fault. The Mw 6.3 Christchurch earthquake, generated by a thrust fault, occurred approximately five months later, 6?km south-east of Christchurch's city center. We have first measured the surface displacement field to retrieve the geometries of the two seismic sources and the slip distribution. In order to assess whether the first earthquake increased the likelihood of occurrence of a second earthquake, we compute the Coulomb Failure Function (CFF). We find that the maximum CFF increase over the second fault plane is reached exactly around the hypocenter of the second earthquake. In this respect, we may conclude that the Darfield earthquake contributed to promote the rupture of the Christchurch fault.

SUBMITTER: Stramondo S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3216583 | biostudies-literature | 2011

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Did the September 2010 (Darfield) earthquake trigger the February 2011 (Christchurch) event?

Stramondo Salvatore S Kyriakopoulos Christodoulos C Bignami Christian C Chini Marco M Melini Daniele D Moro Marco M Picchiani Matteo M Saroli Michele M Boschi Enzo E

Scientific reports 20110922

We have investigated the possible cause-and-effect relationship due to stress transfer between two earthquakes that occurred near Christchurch, New Zealand, in September 2010 and in February 2011. The Mw 7.1 Darfield (Canterbury) event took place along a previously unrecognized fault. The Mw 6.3 Christchurch earthquake, generated by a thrust fault, occurred approximately five months later, 6 km south-east of Christchurch's city center. We have first measured the surface displacement field to ret ...[more]

PMID: 22355616

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceInappropriate antimicrobial drug use is associated with adverse events in hospitalized patients and contributes to the emergence and spread of resistant pathogens. Targeting effective interventions to improve antimicrobial use in the acute care setting requires understanding hospital prescribing practices.ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence of and describe the rationale for antimicrobial use in participating hospitals.Design, setting, and participantsOne-day prevalence surveys were conducted in acute care hospitals in 10 states between May and September 2011. Patients were randomly selected from each hospital's morning census on the survey date. Data collectors reviewed medical records retrospectively to gather data on antimicrobial drugs administered to patients on the survey date and the day prior to the survey date, including reasons for administration, infection sites treated, and whether treated infections began in community or health care settings.Main outcomes and measuresAntimicrobial use prevalence, defined as the number of patients receiving antimicrobial drugs at the time of the survey divided by the total number of surveyed patients.ResultsOf 11,282 patients in 183 hospitals, 5635 (49.9%; 95% CI, 49.0%-50.9%) were administered at least 1 antimicrobial drug; 77.5% (95% CI, 76.6%-78.3%) of antimicrobial drugs were used to treat infections, most commonly involving the lower respiratory tract, urinary tract, or skin and soft tissues, whereas 12.2% (95% CI, 11.5%-12.8%) were given for surgical and 5.9% (95% CI, 5.5%-6.4%) for medical prophylaxis. Of 7641 drugs to treat infections, the most common were parenteral vancomycin (1103, 14.4%; 95% CI, 13.7%-15.2%), ceftriaxone (825, 10.8%; 95% CI, 10.1%-11.5%), piperacillin-tazobactam (788, 10.3%; 95% CI, 9.6%-11.0%), and levofloxacin (694, 9.1%; 95% CI, 8.5%-9.7%). Most drugs administered to treat infections were given for community-onset infections (69.0%; 95% CI, 68.0%-70.1%) and to patients outside critical care units (81.6%; 95% CI, 80.4%-82.7%). The 4 most common treatment antimicrobial drugs overall were also the most common drugs used for both community-onset and health care facility-onset infections and for infections in patients in critical care and noncritical care locations.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional evaluation of antimicrobial use in US hospitals, use of broad-spectrum antimicrobial drugs such as piperacillin-tazobactam and drugs such as vancomycin for resistant pathogens was common, including for treatment of community-onset infections and among patients outside critical care units. Further work is needed to understand the settings and indications for which reducing antimicrobial use can be most effectively and safely accomplished.

Dataset Information

Did the September 2010 (Darfield) earthquake trigger the February 2011 (Christchurch) event?

Publications

Did the September 2010 (Darfield) earthquake trigger the February 2011 (Christchurch) event?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets