Malaria is a serious health problem in Africa, and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has affected the implementation of key malaria control interventions. This jeopardizes the gains made in malaria. As a result, a new co-infection model of COVID-19 and malaria is constructed, and the role of vaccination in COVID-19-malaria co-infection is analyzed. The existence and stability of the equilibria of each single infection are first studied by their respective basic reproduction numbers. When the basic reproduction numbers RC0 and RM0 are both below unity, the COVID-19-malaria-free equilibrium is locally asymptotically stable. Sensitivity analysis reveals that the main parameters affecting the spread of diseases are their respective disease transmission rate and vaccine efficacy. Further, we introduce the effect of vaccination rate and efficacy on controlling the co-infected population. It also shows that under the condition of a low recovery rate caused by the shortage of medical resources, improving the vaccination rate and effectiveness of vaccines has a positive impact on suppressing diseases. The model is then extended into an optimal control system by introducing prevention and treatment measures for COVID-19 and malaria. The results suggest that applying each strategy alone can reduce the scale of co-infection, but strategy A increases the number of malaria cases and strategy B prolongs the period of COVID-19 infection. Measures to control COVID-19 must be combined with efforts to ensure malaria control is maintained.
Citation: Yaxin Ren, Yakui Xue. Modeling and optimal control of COVID-19 and malaria co-infection based on vaccination[J]. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2024, 4(3): 316-335. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2024026
| [1] | Matteo Serra, Fabio Fanari, Francesco Desogus, Paolo Valera . The fluorine in surface waters: origin, weight on human health, and defluoridation techniques. AIMS Geosciences, 2022, 8(4): 686-705. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2022038 |
| [2] | Fernando A.B. Danziger, Graziella M.F. Jannuzzi, Ian S.M. Martins . The relationship between sea-level change, soil formation and stress history of a very soft clay deposit. AIMS Geosciences, 2019, 5(3): 461-479. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2019.3.461 |
| [3] | Inthuorn Sasanakul, Sarah Gassman, Pitak Ruttithivaphanich, Siwadol Dejphumee . Characterization of shear wave velocity profiles for South Carolina Coastal Plain. AIMS Geosciences, 2019, 5(2): 303-324. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2019.2.303 |
| [4] | Mahabir Barak, Manjeet Kumari, Manjeet Kumar . Effect of Hydrological Properties on the Energy Shares of Reflected Waves at the Surface of a Partially Saturated Porous Solid. AIMS Geosciences, 2017, 3(1): 67-90. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2017.1.67 |
| [5] | Hui-yue Wang, Sha-sha Yu, De-long Huang, Chang-lu Xu, Hang Cen, Qiang Liu, Zhong-ling Zong, Zi-Yuan Huang . Seismic response of utility tunnel systems embedded in a horizontal heterogeneous domain subjected to oblique incident SV-wave. AIMS Geosciences, 2025, 11(1): 47-67. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2025004 |
| [6] | Stefano De Falco, Giulia Fiorentino . The GERD dam in the water dispute between Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt. A scenario analysis in an ecosystem approach between physical and geopolitical geography. AIMS Geosciences, 2022, 8(2): 233-253. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2022014 |
| [7] | Rajinder S. Jutla . The Evolution of the Golden Temple of Amritsar into a Major Sikh Pilgrimage Center. AIMS Geosciences, 2016, 2(3): 259-272. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2016.3.259 |
| [8] | Shishay Kidanu, Aleksandra Varnavina, Neil Anderson, Evgeniy Torgashov . Pseudo-3D electrical resistivity tomography imaging of subsurface structure of a sinkhole—A case study in Greene County, Missouri. AIMS Geosciences, 2020, 6(1): 54-70. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2020005 |
| [9] | Vadim Khomich, Svyatoslav Shcheka, Natalia Boriskina . Geodynamic factors in the formation of large gold-bearing provinces with Carlin-type deposits on continental margins in the North Pacific. AIMS Geosciences, 2023, 9(4): 672-696. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2023036 |
| [10] | Abay Yimere, Engdawork Assefa . Beyond the implications of Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam filling policies. AIMS Geosciences, 2021, 7(3): 313-330. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2021019 |
Malaria is a serious health problem in Africa, and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has affected the implementation of key malaria control interventions. This jeopardizes the gains made in malaria. As a result, a new co-infection model of COVID-19 and malaria is constructed, and the role of vaccination in COVID-19-malaria co-infection is analyzed. The existence and stability of the equilibria of each single infection are first studied by their respective basic reproduction numbers. When the basic reproduction numbers RC0 and RM0 are both below unity, the COVID-19-malaria-free equilibrium is locally asymptotically stable. Sensitivity analysis reveals that the main parameters affecting the spread of diseases are their respective disease transmission rate and vaccine efficacy. Further, we introduce the effect of vaccination rate and efficacy on controlling the co-infected population. It also shows that under the condition of a low recovery rate caused by the shortage of medical resources, improving the vaccination rate and effectiveness of vaccines has a positive impact on suppressing diseases. The model is then extended into an optimal control system by introducing prevention and treatment measures for COVID-19 and malaria. The results suggest that applying each strategy alone can reduce the scale of co-infection, but strategy A increases the number of malaria cases and strategy B prolongs the period of COVID-19 infection. Measures to control COVID-19 must be combined with efforts to ensure malaria control is maintained.
The location of interest is the southeast shoulder of the Rio Grande Rift on the boundary between southeast New Mexico and west Texas in the southwest of USA (Figure 1). This shoulder constitutes the west margin of the Great Plains; it is at the southwestern part of the North American Craton [1,2].
Figure 1. The stations deployed by USArray in the region; the blue dots represent the stations of the TA array and the red dots represent the stations of the XR array.The basement of the North American Craton is the Proterozoic Laurentia plate. Southwestern Laurentia constitutes the Mojave, Yavapai, Mazatzal and Grenville Precambrian provinces, ordered by age and located from northwest to southeast [3]. The basement of this region is the source of extensive geological, geophysical and geochemical research, but it remains poorly understood [3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. The fact that it is mostly covered with younger formations and located in the boundary between two countries (Mexico and USA) have contributed to the problem.
Mineral resources found in this region include rare earth elements, beryllium and molybdenum related to Tertiary igneous activity. Ignimbrites related to the large silicic event that constitutes the Sierra Madre Occidental are present in calderas at west Texas; some examples are Quitman, Eagle and Chinati [10,11,12,13,14]. Laccoliths are located at places such as Cornudas and Sierra Blanca, TX; stratovolcanoes such as Sierra Blanca, NM and the batholith at Capitan in New Mexico, also contain anomalously high concentrations of incompatible elements [12,15,16,17]. The magmas that created these igneous features rich in rare earth elements, beryllium and molybdenum have similar tholeiitic and alkalic composition to those of oceanic-island basalts indicating the possibility of having originated as asthenosphere derived melts in the lithospheric mantle during extension [18].
The seismic data used in this study is the Broad-band High-gain Z-component (BHZ) of the seismograms registered by two seismic projects: The transportable array (TA) [19] and the Flex array (XR) [6,20,21]. Both projects were deployed by EarthScope USArray, supported by National Science Foundation (NSF) and are available for download at the official website of the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology, IRIS [22]. We use the WILBER3 tool to download the data [23]. The distribution of the seismic stations is listed in Appendices 1 and Appendices 2, and shown in Figure 1. Three events were specially selected to make the analysis: The first was a magnitude 6.4 earthquake off the coast of Jalisco Mexico (17.52° N, 105.46° W) on September 24,2008; 02: 33: 05 UTC. The second was a magnitude 6.5 earthquake off the coast of Northern California (40.67° N, 124.47° W) on January 10,2010; 00: 27: 41 UTC. The third was a magnitude 8.1 earthquake in the Samoa Islands Region (15.5119° S, 171.9369° W) on September 29,2009; 17: 48: 11 UTC. The time window was considered to select the events; the TA array stations were deployed in the area of interest approximately from February 2008 to February 2010; and the Flex array from August 2008 to December 2011. The events were selected based on large event magnitude and teleseismic distances to produce the best amplitude and signal to noise ratio to model the crustal structure [24]. Large Rayleigh wave amplitudes, relatively low attenuations and long propagation paths have contributed significantly to our understanding of the seismotectonics in the region [25]. The frequent occurrence of earthquakes and growing number of seismic stations near the southeast flank of the Rio Grande Rift made possible the study of the area's Rayleigh wave group velocities. This procedure was selected because it allows the collection with relative ease of a dense distribution of paths using stations within or near the area of research [25,26]. The results shed new light on the seismotectonics of the region.
The geodetic model and isostatic residual gravity anomaly data were downloaded from USGS Mineral Resources On-Line Spatial Data's website [27]. In Figure 6, the contour of the zero isostatic anomaly is shown for reference [28,29]. Shore lines and borderlines are provided by Generic Mapping Tools, GMT [30,31]. The Elevation Model (ETOPO 1) was downloaded from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Centers for Environmental Information, NOAA's NCEI [32].
The following procedure is based on cross correlation of filtered surface waves in to specific band-widths to approximate the inter-station empirical Green's functions using inter-station surface wave dispersion curves. This work was performed using transient seismic signals of the three specific events mentioned in the data section [24,33,34,35,36].
The selected data was processed using the Seismic Analysis Code (SAC) developed by B. Savage and A. Snoke and provided also by IRIS [37,38]. The distance, longitude and latitude of the event and the seismic stations are read from the header of the seismograms. The travel time of the group is calculated using cross correlation. No removal of instrument contribution was necessary because the data was obtained with identical instruments (Streckeisen STS-2 G3 coupled with Quanterra 330 Linear Phase), so they have the same response and same sensitivity; they are also calibrated under the same criteria because they were all deployed by USArray under the same project, EarthScope [21].
The distance between two stations is measured by the subtraction of the great circle path lengths connecting the event with the two stations. In this procedure we also use ray tracing, illustrated in Figures 2a, 2b and 2c, to choose the specific pair of stations; it elucidates the relative position and the order of the stations. The first station should be near, or directly on the seismic path between the event and the second station.
Figure 2a. Ray tracing of the events in Jalisco. Blue dots represent stations of TA array and red dots represent stations of XR array. The background colors represent elevation in meters over sea level.
Figure 2b. Ray tracing of the event in California. Blue dots represent stations of TA array and red dots represent stations of XR array. The background colors represent elevation in meters over sea level.
Figure 2c. Ray tracing of the event in Samoa. Blue dots represent stations of TA array and red dots represent stations of XR array. The background colors represent elevation in meters over sea level.Now that the two stations are identified to be along similar paths and the distance between the two stations is calculated, the seismic travel time between the first and the second station is then calculated using cross correlation. To achieve the cross correlation, the seismograms are loaded into SAC and filtered in the desired frequency band with a specific ban-width. Once the filtering is done, the output signal is corrected and cross-correlated to measure the difference in arrival times; Figure 3 and Figure 4 describe the process graphically [33,34,36].
Figure 3. This procedure was coded in SAC to obtain the correlation times.
Figure 4. Seismograms of an event off the coast of Jalisco. 4a: Are the rough seismograms; 4b: are the seismograms after filtered; 4c: the cross correlation; 4d: the square of the cross correlation. The x axis is in seconds and the y axis is relative amplitude.The filter is a band-pass Butterworth order six [39,40]. It is applied twice with the desired corners from where we define the group. After the correlation the signal is squared to facilitate the identification of the largest peak (maximum). Note that in Figure 4d the maximum amplitude is seen approximately at 19 seconds. The average velocity is then calculated as the ratio between the difference in distance and the correlation time.
We follow the same process for different groups spanning the frequencies available from the seismograms; in this part of the process the physical characteristics of the instrument establish the limitations (Nyquist is 20 Hz). The seismic average velocities of the group are plotted versus period to generate the dispersion curves (Figure 5a).
Figure 5a. Dispersion curves for the event in Jalisco. Horizontal axis represents speed in km/s, the vertical axes, on the left, represents the period in seconds and on the right, represents the approximate depths according to ak135. The line runs from station TA-223A to station TA-W23A approximately from 32° to 35° latitude along –106.25° longitude. Please see Figure 1 to identify the stations involved in the pairs along the line 3.The seismograms were filtered at different band-widths with initial period of 10 seconds. The frequency bandwidths span at increments corresponding to multiples of 5/10, 6/10, 7/10 and 8/10 [33,36]. Figure 5a shows dispersion curves for the stations listed with frequency limits and bandwidths calculated for the event in Jalisco. These dispersion curves and the blockmean tool of the GMT software provided the data to make the profile shown in Figure 5b. The approximate depths labeled in the plot of the dispersion curves in Figure 5a and the profile in Figure 5b on their right axes were taken from the inversion of the model ak135 [41,42]. The red dots in the profile of Figure 5b represent the depth of the Moho according to the receiver functions of the EarthScope Automated Receiver Survey, EARS [43].
Figure 5b. The seismic velocity profile created with the dispersion curves in Figure 5a. Horizontal axis is latitude; vertical axes on the left is period in seconds; on the right is approximate depths; colors are the seismic velocities. The red dots are the approximated depth to the Moho from receiver functions.The data obtained from the calculation of the dispersion curves were stored as matrices containing latitude, longitude, velocity and initial frequency (of the frequency band). These matrices were later used to generate the surface plots shown in Figures 7, 8 and 9. All these Figures were made with the matrices corresponding to band widths of fifth of a decade intervals or periods from 10 s to 20 s for the first band, 20 s to 40 s for the second band, 40 s to 80 s for the third band, 80 s to 160 s for the fourth band. The approximate depths of these frequency bands were approximated from inversion of the model ak135 and joint inversions made for LA RISTRA [8,41,42].
Figure 6. The isostatic residual gravity anomaly of the region. The contour lines denote the zero value of the isostatic anomaly. Some geological structures in the region are identified as: The Diablo Plateau (D), Fort Davis (d), Ouachita (O), Franklyn-Organ Mountains (F), Capitan (C), North Central Basin Platform (B), South Central Basin Platform (b), San Andres Mountains (A), Potrillos Mountains (P), Hueco Bolson (H), Delaware Basin (DB), Tularosa basin (T), Marfa basin (M), Hovey Channel (h), Mesilla basin (m), Sheffield Channel (S) and Salt basin (s). It also shows some of the tertiary REE deposits developed in the region; the dotted lines shows the boundary between Mazatzal and Grenville Precambrian provinces in brown, the alignment visible in the seismic profile for the Jalisco event in purple, the Delaware Basin in black and the Diablo Plateau west boundary in red.
Figure 7. Images represent seismic group velocities calculated using cross correlation for the event in Jalisco. The group periods span: In 7a from 10 to 20 seconds; in 7b from 20 to 40 seconds; in 7c from 40 to 80 seconds and in 7d from 80 to 160 seconds. The x axis represents longitude, the y axis latitude and the color range is seismic velocities in km/s.
Figure 8. Images represent seismic group velocities calculated using cross correlation for the event in California. The group periods span: In 8a from 10 to 20 seconds; in 8b from 20 to 40 seconds; in 8c from 40 to 80 seconds and in 8d from 80 to 160 seconds. The x axis represents longitude, the y axis latitude and the color range is seismic velocities in km/s.
Figure 9. Images represent seismic group velocities calculated using cross correlation for the event in Samoa. The group periods span: In 9a from 10 to 20 seconds; in 9b from 20 to 40 seconds; in 9c from 40 to 80 seconds and in 9d from 80 to 160 seconds. The x axis represents longitude, the y axis latitude and the color range is seismic velocities in km/s.● Between 10 km and 20 km approximated depth for the periods between 10 s and 20 s.
● Between 20 km and 50 km approximated depth for the periods between 20 s and 40 s.
● Between 50 km and 150 km approximated depth for the periods between 40 s and 80 s.
● Between 150 km and 350 km approximated depth for the periods between 80 s and 160 s.
Figure 6 was created to identify the geological structures that constitute this part of the North American Craton. The geological features are labeled on the top of isostatic anomaly map. The labels are:
● Stable structures identified in the region are: The Diablo Plateau (D), Fort Davis Caldera (d), Ouachita (O), Franklin-Organ Mountains (F), Capitan (C), North Central Basin Platform (B), South Central Basin Platform (b), San Andres Mountains (A) and Potrillos Mountains (P) [44].
● Some more flexible corridors surrounding these stable structures are the Hueco Bolson (H), Delaware Basin (DB), Tularosa Basin (T), Marfa Basin (M), Hovey Channel (h), Mesilla Basin (m), Sheffield Channel (S) and Salt Basin (s) [44].
●The lines shown represent the boundary between Mazatzal and Grenville Precambrian Provinces [3], the Delaware Basin, the west boundary of the Diablo Plateau and the diagonal line running from southeast to northwest passing through the center of the Delaware Basin characterizes the Jalisco event analysis. These lines are also shown in the results (Figures 7 to Figures 9) to correlate with the structures.
The results of the seismic velocity model in Figures 7 to 9 were plotted using linear Delaunay triangulation in octave [45,46], an open source alternative software of Matlab [47,48]. Figures 10 and 11 were performed for the estimation of the accuracy [49,50]. The resolution of the figures corresponds to a gridding size of 40 × 40 elements, each 1/100 of a degree in area. For the creation of the surface plot of the seismic velocities, first the Voronoi diagram was created, shown in Figure 10; then the area of interest was gridded into meshes of 5 × 5, 10 × 10, 20 × 20, 30 × 30, 40 × 40, 50 × 50 and 60 × 60 area bins and plotted using the Delaunay triangulation. Figure 11 shows the 5 × 5, 10 × 10, 40 × 40 and 60 × 60 meshes that can be compared to the Voronoi figure. The table in Figure 10 shows the number n of the n × n binning and the size of the area a of each bin. This table was created to determine the most appropriate size of the interpolation mesh; the values of the number n versus the size of the pixel as is shown in the plot next to the table.
Figure 10. Voronoi diagram showing the partitioned plane for the set of positions corresponding to Rayleigh wave velocities calculated for periods ranging from 10 s to 20 s for the event in Jalisco; the table shows the number of side bins n to be calculated per side in a square array of n × n bins of area a that are shown in the plot. The size of the pixel represents a surface in units of degrees square.
Figure 11. Plot of the 2D + 1 surface plot of the seismic velocities interpolated using Delaunay triangulation with area binned by 5 × 5, 10 × 10, 40 × 40 and 60 × 60 bins.The results shown in Figures 7, 8 and 9 were chosen because their wider bandwidths enhance the effects of notches and extinction that are consequences of the multipath trajectories that characterize surface wave propagation; this effect is more frequent when using narrower frequency bandwidths [24]. As an example, in Figure 5a, there is a gap for the dispersion curve of line 3 pair 1 (l3p1); no acceptable data was available in the range between 10.00 s to 14.29 s. The gap was compensated by the blockmean interpolation algorithm of GMT that was used to generate the vertical profile in Figure 7b and by reducing the resolution between stations 223A and 123A. The choice of narrower frequency bands increases the vertical resolution but we should expect more gaps in the seismic velocity matrices due to destructive interference of the multipath effect of seismic surface wave propagation [24]. To generate the plots in Figures 7 to 9 the grid size was chosen from the analysis made in Figures 10 and 11. Figure 11 shows the unrealistic approach of using a 5 × 5 or a 10 × 10 grid in the plots and show that grids greater than 40 × 40 does not provide further information to resolve the geological structures.
From the dispersion curves, Tables 1, 2, 3 and surface plots in Figures 7 to 9, the following structures were resolved: The Delaware Basin shows extreme anisotropy with complicated sub-structures that are resolved differently when the seismic velocities are calculated from sources at different distances and azimuths; its seismic velocities, ranges from 2.2 km/s up to 4.7 km/s. The seismic radiation from the event in California was the slowest, followed by that from the event in Jalisco, with the radiation from the event in Samoa being the fastest. For specific values of specific seismic velocities as function of depth and azimuth please refer to Tables 1, 2, 3. The Diablo Plateau showed seismic velocities, ranging from 3.2 km/s up to 4.3 km/s; but, for the Diablo Plateau, the seismic velocities calculated for the event in California are greater than those calculated for the event in Jalisco in opposition to the scenario in the Delaware Basin and the velocities for the event in Samoa were faster in both scenarios; the event in Jalisco resolves the seismic velocities in high correlation with the isostatic gravity anomaly, the event in Samoa somewhat and the event in California not well. The Tularosa Basin and Sheffield Channel show smaller variations in comparison with the Delaware Basin or the Diablo Plateau but still denote the anisotropy of the region; see Figures 7 to 9 and Tables 1 to 3. The area shows completely different images for every structure depending on the azimuth of the propagation of seismic waves leading to the conclusion of high Rayleigh wave anisotropy.
| Approximated Rayleigh seismic wave velocities for some of the Geological Features in the area of Interest Calculated with the event in Jalisco. The seismic velocities are in kilometers per second | ||||||
| Geol. Feat. | Ref. Stat. | Azimuth | 15±5 km Depth | 35±10 km Depth | 100±50 km Depth | 250±100 km Depth |
| Tularosa Basin | Z23A | -2.4 | 2.4 | 3.3 to 3.5 | 3.8 | 3.9 to 4.3 |
| Diablo Plateau | 224A | -0.2 | 3.2 to 3.4 | 3.5 to 3.6 | 3.8 to 3.9 | 3.9 |
| Delaware Basin | SC61 | 6 | 3.2 to 3.5 | 3.5 to 3.7 | 3.9 to 4.1 | 3.9 to 4.2 |
| Fort Davis | SC61 | 6 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 4 |
| Sheffield Channel | SC73 | 9 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 3.7 | 3.8 |
DownLoad: CSV| Approximated Rayleigh seismic wave velocities for some of the Geological Features in the area of Interest Calculated with the event in California. The seismic velocities are in kilometers per second | ||||||
| Geol. Feat. | Ref. Stat. | Azimuth | 15±5 km Depth | 35±10 km Depth | 100±50 km Depth | 250±100 km Depth |
| Tularosa Basin | Z23A | 111 | 2.7 to 2.9 | 1.3 to 1.7 | 3.7 to 3.8 | 4 |
| Diablo Plateau | 224A | 113 | 3.2 to 3.6 | 3.7 to 3.5 | 3.8 | 3.9 to 4.1 |
| Delaware Basin | SC61 | 110 | 2.2 to 3.5 | 3.5 to 3.7 | 3.9 to 4 | 4 to 4.3 |
| Fort Davis | 326A | 113 | 3.2 to 3.4 | 3.6 | 3.8 to 3.9 | 4.1 |
| Sheffield Channel | SC73 | 112 | 2.5 to 2.8 | 2.6 | 3.6 | 3.1 |
DownLoad: CSV| Approximated Rayleigh seismic wave velocities for some of the Geological Features in the area of Interest Calculated with the event in Samoa. The seismic velocities are in kilometers per second | ||||||
| Geol. Feat. | Ref. Stat. | Azimuth | 15±5 km Depth | 35±10 km Depth | 100±50 km Depth | 250±100 km Depth |
| Sierra Blanca NM | SC19 | 51 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| Tularosa Basin | Z23A | 51 | 3 | 4.2 | 4.8 | 5 to 5.3 |
| Diablo Plateau | 224A | 52 | 4 to 4.3 | 4.1 to 4.6 | 4.8 to 5.5 | 4.9 to 5.4 |
| Delaware Basin | SC61 | 53 | 3.7 to 4.7 | 4.1 to 5.1 | 4.6 to 6 | 4.5 to 4.7 |
| Fort Davis | 426A | 54 | 4.1 to 4.2 | 4.2 to 4.4 | 5.1 | 5.1 to 5.9 |
| Sheffield Channel | SC73 | 54 | 3.9 | 2.8 | 4.9 | 4.9 |
DownLoad: CSVThe use of Rayleigh wave cross correlation analysis is a good tool to identify geological structures of regional size in the crust and upper mantle if the vertical broad band (BHZ) seismic data is available. For this work, data was provided by TA and Flex arrays [19,20].
If you are planning to use Rayleigh wave cross correlation it is not recommended to combine the data from different events for the following reasons:
● The results of the seismic velocity calculations for different events have different averages and standard deviations. The contrast of the plot is affected by the standard deviation.
● Anisotropy causes huge differences in seismic velocities for surface waves travelling along different azimuths in a specific region. The seismic velocity of a region is a function of the angle of incidence of the seismic radiation.
● The uniqueness of the alignment in the strike and slip of the event (focal mechanism) produces specific distribution of stresses; it is elucidated by the moment tensor [51]. The geology reacts differently to different events.
For these reasons the plot performed for different events leads to completely different images. From observation of the results, the structures are best resolved by radiation patterns that are perpendicular to their boundaries.
● Surface waves have some disadvantages.
● Extinction when passing through any geological structure with content of liquid or melts. This effect is caused because shear waves do not propagate in liquids; then, melting, partial melting or content of fluid in the geological formation along the path can cause anomalous correlation or extinction. In this area we have this effect when seismic waves pass through the Mogollon-Datil volcanic field; due to this problem the area near the upper Rio Grande Rift is not possible to model for events like California or Jalisco.
● Another important problem arising from surface wave propagation is called multi-pathing; this problem can be understood better if we recall the Huygens-Fresnel's wave propagation principle instead of the ray tracing model [24,51]. Correlation between two stations that, according to ray tracing, follow similar paths due to the presence of nearby boundaries striking along the propagation with large differences in seismic velocities, leads to negative time correlations. In other words, if signals arriving in the first station came from nearby geological structures with faster seismic speed than that of the second station, then the time correlation leads to negative values. This can be seen as the gap in the dispersion curves shown for the Jalisco event in Figure 5a.
● In another scenario the difference in phase between the two paths superposes destructively causing extinction of the amplitude in the correlation. The reduction or lack of amplitudes in the signal is seen in the dispersion as a discontinuity commonly called notch; the presence of notches causes loss of resolution in the plot [24].
For the area of this investigation, the plot has lower resolution on the rift than on the plains (in the shoulder of the rift also called flank). For this reason, we decided to use the widest bandwidths to perform the plot shown in Figures 9 to 11.
The data used in this study were provided by Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology Data Management Center (IRIS DMC), United States Geological Survey (USGS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Centers for Environmental Information (NOAA's NCEI) and General Mopping Tools (GMT).
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
| NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON | NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON |
| TA | 121A | 32.5324 | –107.7851 | TA | TASL | 34.9454 | –106.4565 |
| TA | 122A | 32.6995 | –107.0005 | TA | TASM | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 123A | 32.6349 | –106.2622 | TA | TASN | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 124A | 32.7001 | –105.4544 | TA | TASO | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 125A | 32.6588 | –104.6573 | TA | TASP | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 126A | 32.6462 | –104.0204 | TA | TVZX | 34.0733 | –106.9196 |
| TA | 127A | 32.6764 | –103.3575 | TA | X21A | 34.4457 | –107.7857 |
| TA | 128A | 32.6213 | –102.485 | TA | X22A | 34.5058 | –107.0102 |
| TA | 221A | 32.0094 | –107.7782 | TA | X23A | 34.581 | –106.1881 |
| TA | 222A | 32.1046 | –107.1013 | TA | X24A | 34.5646 | –105.4349 |
| TA | 223A | 32.0062 | –106.4276 | TA | X25A | 34.5271 | –104.6621 |
| TA | 224A | 32.076 | –105.5226 | TA | X26A | 34.5508 | –103.8103 |
| TA | 225A | 32.1101 | –104.8229 | TA | X27A | 34.6469 | –103.0974 |
| TA | 226A | 32.0618 | –104.1014 | TA | X28A | 34.5185 | –102.1973 |
| TA | 226B | 32.0778 | –104.1654 | TA | Y21A | 34.0087 | –107.674 |
| TA | 227A | 32.012 | –103.2924 | TA | Y22A | 33.937 | –106.9652 |
| TA | 228A | 32.118 | –102.5918 | TA | Y22C | 34.0741 | –106.9211 |
| TA | 324A | 31.4425 | –105.4828 | TA | Y22D | 34.0739 | –106.921 |
| TA | 325A | 31.3711 | –104.9712 | TA | Y22E | 34.0742 | –106.9208 |
| TA | 326A | 31.3165 | –103.9786 | TA | Y22F | 34.0741 | –106.9209 |
| TA | 327A | 31.3691 | –103.4923 | TA | Y23A | 33.9315 | –106.0549 |
| TA | 328A | 31.3818 | –102.8097 | TA | Y24A | 33.9257 | –105.4361 |
| TA | 425A | 30.7862 | –104.9857 | TA | Y25A | 33.9229 | –104.6928 |
| TA | 426A | 30.6689 | –104.0293 | TA | Y26A | 33.9232 | –103.8246 |
| TA | 427A | 30.8498 | –103.4018 | TA | Y27A | 33.8839 | –103.1633 |
| TA | 428A | 30.7263 | –102.6847 | TA | Y28A | 33.9086 | –102.2479 |
| TA | 526A | 30.0609 | –104.0898 | TA | Z21A | 33.3086 | –107.6712 |
| TA | 527A | 30.1456 | –103.6119 | TA | Z22A | 33.2555 | –106.9639 |
| TA | 528A | 30.1615 | –102.788 | TA | Z23A | 33.2621 | –106.2319 |
| TA | 529A | 30.1246 | –102.2204 | TA | Z24A | 33.3298 | –105.3649 |
| TA | 626A | 29.554 | –104.1335 | TA | Z25A | 33.2797 | –104.7171 |
| TA | 627A | 29.4528 | –103.3887 | TA | Z26A | 33.2716 | –103.9798 |
| TA | 628A | 29.4862 | –102.8885 | TA | Z27A | 33.315 | –103.2145 |
| TA | MSTX | 33.9696 | –102.7724 | TA | Z28A | 33.2884 | –102.3866 |
DownLoad: CSV| NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON | NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON |
| XR | SC04 | 34.5228 | –105.8119 | XR | SC40 | 32.9317 | –103.54 |
| XR | SC05 | 34.5715 | –105.0554 | XR | SC41 | 32.9833 | –103.2056 |
| XR | SC06 | 34.5145 | –104.2664 | XR | SC42 | 32.8728 | –102.8612 |
| XR | SC07 | 34.1838 | –105.6877 | XR | SC43 | 32.9426 | –102.5369 |
| XR | SC08 | 34.1567 | –105.4697 | XR | SC44 | 32.7572 | –105.947 |
| XR | SC09 | 34.1517 | –105.0013 | XR | SC45 | 32.6337 | –105.1552 |
| XR | SC10 | 34.1937 | –104.6666 | XR | SC46 | 32.654 | –104.3614 |
| XR | SC11 | 34.2323 | –104.2959 | XR | SC47 | 32.629 | –103.6257 |
| XR | SC12 | 34.2148 | –103.9116 | XR | SC48 | 32.6899 | –102.905 |
| XR | SC13 | 34.2135 | –103.5269 | XR | SC49 | 32.443 | –106.064 |
| XR | SC14 | 33.9682 | –105.7695 | XR | SC50 | 32.3895 | –105.6153 |
| XR | SC15 | 33.8308 | –105.0255 | XR | SC51 | 32.3673 | –105.1718 |
| XR | SC16 | 33.8903 | –104.3043 | XR | SC52 | 32.488 | –104.8272 |
| XR | SC17 | 33.893 | –103.5446 | XR | SC53 | 32.3766 | –104.3192 |
| XR | SC18 | 33.8774 | –102.8409 | XR | SC54 | 32.2837 | –104.0398 |
| XR | SC19 | 33.5188 | –105.9744 | XR | SC55 | 32.1712 | –103.6733 |
| XR | SC20 | 33.6042 | –105.5935 | XR | SC56 | 32.3554 | –103.3986 |
| XR | SC21 | 33.5975 | –105.1655 | XR | SC57 | 32.3691 | –102.8513 |
| XR | SC22 | 33.5682 | –104.7542 | XR | SC58 | 32.2888 | –102.5482 |
| XR | SC23 | 33.5995 | –104.3282 | XR | SC59 | 31.9694 | –105.1481 |
| XR | SC25 | 33.5806 | –103.5482 | XR | SC60 | 32.0937 | –104.4877 |
| XR | SC26 | 33.5044 | –103.1184 | XR | SC61 | 31.9895 | –103.6911 |
| XR | SC27 | 33.5385 | –102.8207 | XR | SC62 | 32.0119 | –102.9373 |
| XR | SC28 | 33.5662 | –102.4915 | XR | SC63 | 31.8029 | –104.8464 |
| XR | SC29 | 33.3102 | –105.6705 | XR | SC64 | 31.6996 | –104.4258 |
| XR | SC30 | 33.2738 | –105.17 | XR | SC65 | 31.727 | –104.0178 |
| XR | SC31 | 33.259 | –104.3415 | XR | SC66 | 31.6679 | –103.7363 |
| XR | SC32 | 33.1939 | –103.5979 | XR | SC67 | 31.7051 | –103.3951 |
| XR | SC33 | 33.2334 | –102.8343 | XR | SC68 | 31.8027 | –102.77 |
| XR | SC34 | 32.9513 | –105.8163 | XR | SC69 | 31.6905 | –102.588 |
| XR | SC35 | 32.9369 | –105.5153 | XR | SC70 | 31.3663 | –103.7374 |
| XR | SC36 | 33.0053 | –105.18 | XR | SC71 | 31.6463 | –103.0655 |
| XR | SC37 | 32.937 | –104.6192 | XR | SC72 | 31.1096 | –103.6346 |
| XR | SC38 | 32.9288 | –104.3402 | XR | SC73 | 30.9611 | –102.9875 |
| XR | SC39 | 33.0286 | –103.8453 | XR | SC74 | 31.0024 | –102.6771 |
| XR | SC75 | 31.8742 | –105.952 |
DownLoad: CSV| [1] |
L. Wang, Z. D. Teng, T. L. Zhang, Threshold dynamics of a malaria transmission model in periodic environment, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul., 18 (2013), 1288–1303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2012.09.007 doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2012.09.007
|
| [2] |
Z. Mukandavire, A. B. Gumel, W. Garira, J. M. Tchuenche, Mathematical analysis of a model for HIV-malaria co-infection, Math. Biosci. Eng., 6 (2009), 333–362. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2009.6.333 doi: 10.3934/mbe.2009.6.333
|
| [3] |
X. R. Dong, X. Zhang, M. Y. Wang, L. W. Gu, J. Li, M. X. Gong, Heparin-decorated nanostructured lipid carriers of artemether-protoporphyrin IX-transferrin combination for therapy of malaria, Int. J. Pharm., 605 (2021), 120813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2021.120813 doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2021.120813
|
| [4] |
L. Xue, C. A. Manore, P. Thongsripong, J. M. Hyman, Two-sex mosquito model for the persistence of Wolbachia, J. Biol. Dyn., 11 (2017), 216–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513758.2016.1229051 doi: 10.1080/17513758.2016.1229051
|
| [5] |
P. Chanda-Kapata, N. Kapata, A. Zumla, COVID-19 and malaria: a symptom screening challenge for malaria endemic countries, Int. J. Infect. Dis., 94 (2020), 151–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.04.007 doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.04.007
|
| [6] |
J. Nachega, M. Seydi, A. Zumla, The late arrival of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Africa: mitigating pan-continental spread, Clin. Infect. Dis., 71 (2020), 875–878. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa353 doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa353
|
| [7] |
J. Hopman, B. Allegranzi, S. Mehtar, Managing COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries, JAMA, 323 (2020), 1549–1550. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.4169 doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4169
|
| [8] |
J. R. Gutman, N. W. Lucchi, P. T. Cantey, L. C Steinhardt, A. M Samuels, M. L. Kamb, et al., Malaria and parasitic neglected tropical diseases: potential syndemics with COVID-19? Amer. J. Trop. Med. Hyg., 103 (2020), 572–577. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.20-0516 doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.20-0516
|
| [9] |
C. Y. Chiang, A. E. Sony, Tackling the threat of COVID-19 in Africa: an urgent need for practical planning, Int. J. Tuberc. Lung. Dis., 24 (2020), 541–542. https://doi.org/10.5588/ijtld.20.0192 doi: 10.5588/ijtld.20.0192
|
| [10] |
M. Gilbert, G. Pullano, F. Pinotti, E. Valdano, C. Poletto, P. Y. Boëlle, et al., Preparedness and vulnerability of African countries against importations of COVID-19: a modelling study, Lancet, 395 (2020), 871–877. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30411-6 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30411-6
|
| [11] |
V. Quaresima, M. M. Naldini, D. M. Cirillo, The prospects for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Africa, EMBO Mol. Med., 12 (2020), e12488. https://doi.org/10.15252/emmm.202012488 doi: 10.15252/emmm.202012488
|
| [12] |
M. Majumder, P. K. Tiwari, S. Pal, Impact of nonlinear infection rate on HIV/AIDS considering prevalence-dependent awareness, Math. Methods Appl. Sci., 46 (2023), 3821–3848. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.8723 doi: 10.1002/mma.8723
|
| [13] |
S. Y. Tchoumi, M. L. Diagne, H. Rwezaura, J. M. Tchuenche, Malaria and COVID-19 co-dynamics: a mathematical model and optimal control, Appl. Math. Model., 99 (2021), 294–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2021.06.016 doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2021.06.016
|
| [14] |
M. M. Ojo, E. F. D. Goufo, The impact of COVID-19 on a malaria dominated region: a mathematical analysis and simulations, Alex. Eng. J., 65 (2023), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2022.09.045 doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2022.09.045
|
| [15] |
B. Yang, Z. H. Yu, Y. L. Cai, The impact of vaccination on the spread of COVID-19: studying by a mathematical model, Phys. A, 590 (2022), 126717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2021.126717 doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2021.126717
|
| [16] |
B. J. Nath, K. Dehingia, V. N. Mishra, Y. M. Chu, H. K. Sarmah, Mathematical analysis of a within-host model of SARS-CoV-2, Adv. Differ. Equations, 2021 (2021), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13662-021-03276-1 doi: 10.1186/s13662-021-03276-1
|
| [17] |
M. A. Rasheed, S. Raza, A. Zohaib, M. I. Riaz, A. Amin, M. Awais, et al., Immunoinformatics based prediction of recombinant multi-epitope vaccine for the control and prevention of SARS-CoV-2, Alex. Eng. J., 60 (2021), 3087–3097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2021.01.046 doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2021.01.046
|
| [18] |
Z. H. Shen, Y. M. Chu, M. A. Khan, S. Muhammad, O. A. Al-Hartomy, M. Higazy, Mathematical modeling and optimal control of the COVID-19 dynamics, Results Phys., 31 (2021), 105028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2021.105028 doi: 10.1016/j.rinp.2021.105028
|
| [19] |
Y. M. Chu, A. Ali, M. A. Khan, S. Islam, S. Ullah, Dynamics of fractional order COVID-19 model with a case study of Saudi Arabia, Results Phys., 21 (2021), 103787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103787 doi: 10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103787
|
| [20] |
Y. M. Chu, M. F. Yassen, I. Ahmad, P. Sunthrayuth, M. A. Khan, A fractional SARS-CoV-2 model with Atangana-Baleanu derivative: application to fourth wave, Fractals, 30 (2022), 2240210. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218348X22402101 doi: 10.1142/S0218348X22402101
|
| [21] |
P. Pandey, Y. M. Chu, J. F. Gmez-Aguilar, H. Jahanshahi, A. A. Aly, A novel fractional mathematical model of COVID-19 epidemic considering quarantine and latent time, Results Phys., 26 (2021), 104286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2021.104286 doi: 10.1016/j.rinp.2021.104286
|
| [22] |
A. Omame, H. Rwezaura, M. L. Diagne, COVID-19 and dengue co-infection in Brazil: optimal control and cost-effectiveness analysis, Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 136 (2021), 1090. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02030-6 doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02030-6
|
| [23] |
A. Omame, M. E. Isah, M. Abbas, A fractional order model for dual variants of COVID-19 and HIV co-infection via Atangana-Baleanu derivative, Alex. Eng. J., 61 (2022), 9715–9731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2022.03.013 doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2022.03.013
|
| [24] |
N. Ringa, M. L. Diagne, H. Rwezaura, A. Omame, S. Y. Tchoumi, J. M. Tchuenche, HIV and COVID-19 co-infection: a mathematical model and optimal control, Inf. Med. Unlocked, 31 (2022), 100978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imu.2022.100978 doi: 10.1016/j.imu.2022.100978
|
| [25] |
I. M. Hezam, A. Foul, A. Alrasheedi, A dynamic optimal control model for COVID-19 and cholera co-infection in Yemen, Adv. Differ. Equations, 2021 (2021), 108. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13662-021-03271-6 doi: 10.1186/s13662-021-03271-6
|
| [26] |
W. Y. Shen, Y. M. Chu, M. ur Rahman, I. Mahariq, A. Zeb, Mathematical analysis of HBV and HCV co-infection model under nonsingular fractional order derivative, Results Phys., 28 (2021), 104582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2021.104582 doi: 10.1016/j.rinp.2021.104582
|
| [27] |
M. Majumder, P. K. Tiwari, S. Pal, Impact of saturated treatments on HIV-TB dual epidemic as a consequence of COVID-19: optimal control with awareness and treatment, Nonlinear Dyn., 109 (2022), 143–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-022-07395-6 doi: 10.1007/s11071-022-07395-6
|
| [28] |
J. M. Mutua, F. B. Wang, N. K. Vaidya, Modeling malaria and typhoid fever co-infection dynamics, Math. Biosci., 264 (2015), 128–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mbs.2015.03.014 doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2015.03.014
|
| [29] |
A. Omame, M. Abbas, C. P. Onyenegecha, A fractional-order model for COVID-19 and tuberculosis co-infection using Atangana-Baleanu derivative, Chaos Solitons Fract., 153 (2021), 111486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2021.111486 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2021.111486
|
| [30] |
A. Omame, M. Abbas, C. P. Onyenegecha, A fractional order model for the co-interaction of COVID-19 and hepatitis B virus, Results Phys., 37 (2022), 105498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2022.105498 doi: 10.1016/j.rinp.2022.105498
|
| [31] |
B. E. Bassey, J. U. Atsu, Global stability analysis of the role of multi-therapies and non-pharmaceutical treatment protocols for COVID-19 pandemic, Chaos Solitons Fract., 143 (2021), 110574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110574 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110574
|
| [32] |
A. S. Bhadauria, R. Pathak, M. Chaudhary, A SIQ mathematical model on COVID-19 investigating the lockdown effect, Infect. Dis. Modell., 6 (2021), 244–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idm.2020.12.010 doi: 10.1016/j.idm.2020.12.010
|
| [33] | J. Couras, I. Area, J. J. Nieto, C. J. Silva, D. F. M. Torres, Optimal control of vaccination and plasma transfusion with potential usefulness for COVID-19, In: P. Agarwal, J. J. Nieto, M. Ruzhansky, D. F. M. Torres, Analysis of infectious disease problems (COVID-19) and their global impact, Springer, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2450-6_23 |
| [34] |
P. Wintachai, K. Prathom, Stability analysis of SEIR model related to efficiency of vaccines for COVID-19 situation, Heliyon, 7 (2021), e06812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06812 doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06812
|
| [35] | S. Berkane, I. Harizi, A. Tayebi, Modeling the effect of population-wide vaccination on the evolution of COVID-19 epidemic in Canada, medRxiv, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.05.21250572 |
| [36] |
M. A. Acuña-Zegarra, S. Díaz-Infante, D. Baca-Carrasco, D. Olmos-Liceaga, COVID-19 optimal vaccination policies: a modeling study on efficacy, natural and vaccine-induced immunity responses, Math. Biosci., 337 (2021), 108614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mbs.2021.108614 doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2021.108614
|
| [37] |
B. Buonomo, R. D. Marca, A. d'Onofrio, M. Groppi, A behavioural modelling approach to assess the impact of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, J. Theor. Biol., 534 (2022), 110973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2021.110973 doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2021.110973
|
| [38] |
A. Fridman, R. Gershon, A. Gneezy, COVID-19 and vaccine hesitancy: a longitudinal study, Plos One, 16 (2021), e0250123. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250123 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250123
|
| [39] |
N. Gul, R. Bilal, E. A. Algehyne, The dynamics of fractional order Hepatitis B virus model with asymptomatic carriers, Alex. Eng. J., 60 (2021), 3945–3955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2021.02.057 doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2021.02.057
|
| [40] |
F. B. Agusto, Optimal isolation control strategies and cost-effectiveness analysis of a two-strain avian influenza model, Biosystems, 113 (2013), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2013.06.004 doi: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2013.06.004
|
| [41] |
P. van den Driessche, J. Watmough, Reproduction numbers and sub-threshold endemic equilibria for compartmental models of disease transmission, Math. Biosci., 180 (2002), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-5564(02)00108-6 doi: 10.1016/S0025-5564(02)00108-6
|
| [42] | J. P. L. Salle, The stability of dynamical systems, SIAM, 1976. |
| [43] |
L. Xue, H. Y. Zhang, W. Sun, C. Scoglio, Transmission dynamics of multi-strain dengue virus with cross-immunity, Appl. Math. Comput., 392 (2021), 125742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2020.125742 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2020.125742
|
| [44] | L. Pontryagin, V. Boltyanskii, R. Gamkrelidze, E. Mishchenko, The mathematical theory of optimal control process, 4 Eds., Routledge, 1962. |
Figures(13) / Tables(4)
Yaxin Ren, Yakui Xue. Modeling and optimal control of COVID-19 and malaria co-infection based on vaccination[J]. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2024, 4(3): 316-335. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2024026
| Approximated Rayleigh seismic wave velocities for some of the Geological Features in the area of Interest Calculated with the event in Jalisco. The seismic velocities are in kilometers per second | ||||||
| Geol. Feat. | Ref. Stat. | Azimuth | 15±5 km Depth | 35±10 km Depth | 100±50 km Depth | 250±100 km Depth |
| Tularosa Basin | Z23A | -2.4 | 2.4 | 3.3 to 3.5 | 3.8 | 3.9 to 4.3 |
| Diablo Plateau | 224A | -0.2 | 3.2 to 3.4 | 3.5 to 3.6 | 3.8 to 3.9 | 3.9 |
| Delaware Basin | SC61 | 6 | 3.2 to 3.5 | 3.5 to 3.7 | 3.9 to 4.1 | 3.9 to 4.2 |
| Fort Davis | SC61 | 6 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 4 |
| Sheffield Channel | SC73 | 9 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 3.7 | 3.8 |
DownLoad: CSV| Approximated Rayleigh seismic wave velocities for some of the Geological Features in the area of Interest Calculated with the event in California. The seismic velocities are in kilometers per second | ||||||
| Geol. Feat. | Ref. Stat. | Azimuth | 15±5 km Depth | 35±10 km Depth | 100±50 km Depth | 250±100 km Depth |
| Tularosa Basin | Z23A | 111 | 2.7 to 2.9 | 1.3 to 1.7 | 3.7 to 3.8 | 4 |
| Diablo Plateau | 224A | 113 | 3.2 to 3.6 | 3.7 to 3.5 | 3.8 | 3.9 to 4.1 |
| Delaware Basin | SC61 | 110 | 2.2 to 3.5 | 3.5 to 3.7 | 3.9 to 4 | 4 to 4.3 |
| Fort Davis | 326A | 113 | 3.2 to 3.4 | 3.6 | 3.8 to 3.9 | 4.1 |
| Sheffield Channel | SC73 | 112 | 2.5 to 2.8 | 2.6 | 3.6 | 3.1 |
DownLoad: CSV| Approximated Rayleigh seismic wave velocities for some of the Geological Features in the area of Interest Calculated with the event in Samoa. The seismic velocities are in kilometers per second | ||||||
| Geol. Feat. | Ref. Stat. | Azimuth | 15±5 km Depth | 35±10 km Depth | 100±50 km Depth | 250±100 km Depth |
| Sierra Blanca NM | SC19 | 51 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| Tularosa Basin | Z23A | 51 | 3 | 4.2 | 4.8 | 5 to 5.3 |
| Diablo Plateau | 224A | 52 | 4 to 4.3 | 4.1 to 4.6 | 4.8 to 5.5 | 4.9 to 5.4 |
| Delaware Basin | SC61 | 53 | 3.7 to 4.7 | 4.1 to 5.1 | 4.6 to 6 | 4.5 to 4.7 |
| Fort Davis | 426A | 54 | 4.1 to 4.2 | 4.2 to 4.4 | 5.1 | 5.1 to 5.9 |
| Sheffield Channel | SC73 | 54 | 3.9 | 2.8 | 4.9 | 4.9 |
DownLoad: CSV| NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON | NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON |
| TA | 121A | 32.5324 | –107.7851 | TA | TASL | 34.9454 | –106.4565 |
| TA | 122A | 32.6995 | –107.0005 | TA | TASM | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 123A | 32.6349 | –106.2622 | TA | TASN | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 124A | 32.7001 | –105.4544 | TA | TASO | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 125A | 32.6588 | –104.6573 | TA | TASP | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 126A | 32.6462 | –104.0204 | TA | TVZX | 34.0733 | –106.9196 |
| TA | 127A | 32.6764 | –103.3575 | TA | X21A | 34.4457 | –107.7857 |
| TA | 128A | 32.6213 | –102.485 | TA | X22A | 34.5058 | –107.0102 |
| TA | 221A | 32.0094 | –107.7782 | TA | X23A | 34.581 | –106.1881 |
| TA | 222A | 32.1046 | –107.1013 | TA | X24A | 34.5646 | –105.4349 |
| TA | 223A | 32.0062 | –106.4276 | TA | X25A | 34.5271 | –104.6621 |
| TA | 224A | 32.076 | –105.5226 | TA | X26A | 34.5508 | –103.8103 |
| TA | 225A | 32.1101 | –104.8229 | TA | X27A | 34.6469 | –103.0974 |
| TA | 226A | 32.0618 | –104.1014 | TA | X28A | 34.5185 | –102.1973 |
| TA | 226B | 32.0778 | –104.1654 | TA | Y21A | 34.0087 | –107.674 |
| TA | 227A | 32.012 | –103.2924 | TA | Y22A | 33.937 | –106.9652 |
| TA | 228A | 32.118 | –102.5918 | TA | Y22C | 34.0741 | –106.9211 |
| TA | 324A | 31.4425 | –105.4828 | TA | Y22D | 34.0739 | –106.921 |
| TA | 325A | 31.3711 | –104.9712 | TA | Y22E | 34.0742 | –106.9208 |
| TA | 326A | 31.3165 | –103.9786 | TA | Y22F | 34.0741 | –106.9209 |
| TA | 327A | 31.3691 | –103.4923 | TA | Y23A | 33.9315 | –106.0549 |
| TA | 328A | 31.3818 | –102.8097 | TA | Y24A | 33.9257 | –105.4361 |
| TA | 425A | 30.7862 | –104.9857 | TA | Y25A | 33.9229 | –104.6928 |
| TA | 426A | 30.6689 | –104.0293 | TA | Y26A | 33.9232 | –103.8246 |
| TA | 427A | 30.8498 | –103.4018 | TA | Y27A | 33.8839 | –103.1633 |
| TA | 428A | 30.7263 | –102.6847 | TA | Y28A | 33.9086 | –102.2479 |
| TA | 526A | 30.0609 | –104.0898 | TA | Z21A | 33.3086 | –107.6712 |
| TA | 527A | 30.1456 | –103.6119 | TA | Z22A | 33.2555 | –106.9639 |
| TA | 528A | 30.1615 | –102.788 | TA | Z23A | 33.2621 | –106.2319 |
| TA | 529A | 30.1246 | –102.2204 | TA | Z24A | 33.3298 | –105.3649 |
| TA | 626A | 29.554 | –104.1335 | TA | Z25A | 33.2797 | –104.7171 |
| TA | 627A | 29.4528 | –103.3887 | TA | Z26A | 33.2716 | –103.9798 |
| TA | 628A | 29.4862 | –102.8885 | TA | Z27A | 33.315 | –103.2145 |
| TA | MSTX | 33.9696 | –102.7724 | TA | Z28A | 33.2884 | –102.3866 |
DownLoad: CSV| NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON | NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON |
| XR | SC04 | 34.5228 | –105.8119 | XR | SC40 | 32.9317 | –103.54 |
| XR | SC05 | 34.5715 | –105.0554 | XR | SC41 | 32.9833 | –103.2056 |
| XR | SC06 | 34.5145 | –104.2664 | XR | SC42 | 32.8728 | –102.8612 |
| XR | SC07 | 34.1838 | –105.6877 | XR | SC43 | 32.9426 | –102.5369 |
| XR | SC08 | 34.1567 | –105.4697 | XR | SC44 | 32.7572 | –105.947 |
| XR | SC09 | 34.1517 | –105.0013 | XR | SC45 | 32.6337 | –105.1552 |
| XR | SC10 | 34.1937 | –104.6666 | XR | SC46 | 32.654 | –104.3614 |
| XR | SC11 | 34.2323 | –104.2959 | XR | SC47 | 32.629 | –103.6257 |
| XR | SC12 | 34.2148 | –103.9116 | XR | SC48 | 32.6899 | –102.905 |
| XR | SC13 | 34.2135 | –103.5269 | XR | SC49 | 32.443 | –106.064 |
| XR | SC14 | 33.9682 | –105.7695 | XR | SC50 | 32.3895 | –105.6153 |
| XR | SC15 | 33.8308 | –105.0255 | XR | SC51 | 32.3673 | –105.1718 |
| XR | SC16 | 33.8903 | –104.3043 | XR | SC52 | 32.488 | –104.8272 |
| XR | SC17 | 33.893 | –103.5446 | XR | SC53 | 32.3766 | –104.3192 |
| XR | SC18 | 33.8774 | –102.8409 | XR | SC54 | 32.2837 | –104.0398 |
| XR | SC19 | 33.5188 | –105.9744 | XR | SC55 | 32.1712 | –103.6733 |
| XR | SC20 | 33.6042 | –105.5935 | XR | SC56 | 32.3554 | –103.3986 |
| XR | SC21 | 33.5975 | –105.1655 | XR | SC57 | 32.3691 | –102.8513 |
| XR | SC22 | 33.5682 | –104.7542 | XR | SC58 | 32.2888 | –102.5482 |
| XR | SC23 | 33.5995 | –104.3282 | XR | SC59 | 31.9694 | –105.1481 |
| XR | SC25 | 33.5806 | –103.5482 | XR | SC60 | 32.0937 | –104.4877 |
| XR | SC26 | 33.5044 | –103.1184 | XR | SC61 | 31.9895 | –103.6911 |
| XR | SC27 | 33.5385 | –102.8207 | XR | SC62 | 32.0119 | –102.9373 |
| XR | SC28 | 33.5662 | –102.4915 | XR | SC63 | 31.8029 | –104.8464 |
| XR | SC29 | 33.3102 | –105.6705 | XR | SC64 | 31.6996 | –104.4258 |
| XR | SC30 | 33.2738 | –105.17 | XR | SC65 | 31.727 | –104.0178 |
| XR | SC31 | 33.259 | –104.3415 | XR | SC66 | 31.6679 | –103.7363 |
| XR | SC32 | 33.1939 | –103.5979 | XR | SC67 | 31.7051 | –103.3951 |
| XR | SC33 | 33.2334 | –102.8343 | XR | SC68 | 31.8027 | –102.77 |
| XR | SC34 | 32.9513 | –105.8163 | XR | SC69 | 31.6905 | –102.588 |
| XR | SC35 | 32.9369 | –105.5153 | XR | SC70 | 31.3663 | –103.7374 |
| XR | SC36 | 33.0053 | –105.18 | XR | SC71 | 31.6463 | –103.0655 |
| XR | SC37 | 32.937 | –104.6192 | XR | SC72 | 31.1096 | –103.6346 |
| XR | SC38 | 32.9288 | –104.3402 | XR | SC73 | 30.9611 | –102.9875 |
| XR | SC39 | 33.0286 | –103.8453 | XR | SC74 | 31.0024 | –102.6771 |
| XR | SC75 | 31.8742 | –105.952 |
DownLoad: CSV| Approximated Rayleigh seismic wave velocities for some of the Geological Features in the area of Interest Calculated with the event in Jalisco. The seismic velocities are in kilometers per second | ||||||
| Geol. Feat. | Ref. Stat. | Azimuth | 15±5 km Depth | 35±10 km Depth | 100±50 km Depth | 250±100 km Depth |
| Tularosa Basin | Z23A | -2.4 | 2.4 | 3.3 to 3.5 | 3.8 | 3.9 to 4.3 |
| Diablo Plateau | 224A | -0.2 | 3.2 to 3.4 | 3.5 to 3.6 | 3.8 to 3.9 | 3.9 |
| Delaware Basin | SC61 | 6 | 3.2 to 3.5 | 3.5 to 3.7 | 3.9 to 4.1 | 3.9 to 4.2 |
| Fort Davis | SC61 | 6 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 4 |
| Sheffield Channel | SC73 | 9 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 3.7 | 3.8 |
| Approximated Rayleigh seismic wave velocities for some of the Geological Features in the area of Interest Calculated with the event in California. The seismic velocities are in kilometers per second | ||||||
| Geol. Feat. | Ref. Stat. | Azimuth | 15±5 km Depth | 35±10 km Depth | 100±50 km Depth | 250±100 km Depth |
| Tularosa Basin | Z23A | 111 | 2.7 to 2.9 | 1.3 to 1.7 | 3.7 to 3.8 | 4 |
| Diablo Plateau | 224A | 113 | 3.2 to 3.6 | 3.7 to 3.5 | 3.8 | 3.9 to 4.1 |
| Delaware Basin | SC61 | 110 | 2.2 to 3.5 | 3.5 to 3.7 | 3.9 to 4 | 4 to 4.3 |
| Fort Davis | 326A | 113 | 3.2 to 3.4 | 3.6 | 3.8 to 3.9 | 4.1 |
| Sheffield Channel | SC73 | 112 | 2.5 to 2.8 | 2.6 | 3.6 | 3.1 |
| Approximated Rayleigh seismic wave velocities for some of the Geological Features in the area of Interest Calculated with the event in Samoa. The seismic velocities are in kilometers per second | ||||||
| Geol. Feat. | Ref. Stat. | Azimuth | 15±5 km Depth | 35±10 km Depth | 100±50 km Depth | 250±100 km Depth |
| Sierra Blanca NM | SC19 | 51 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| Tularosa Basin | Z23A | 51 | 3 | 4.2 | 4.8 | 5 to 5.3 |
| Diablo Plateau | 224A | 52 | 4 to 4.3 | 4.1 to 4.6 | 4.8 to 5.5 | 4.9 to 5.4 |
| Delaware Basin | SC61 | 53 | 3.7 to 4.7 | 4.1 to 5.1 | 4.6 to 6 | 4.5 to 4.7 |
| Fort Davis | 426A | 54 | 4.1 to 4.2 | 4.2 to 4.4 | 5.1 | 5.1 to 5.9 |
| Sheffield Channel | SC73 | 54 | 3.9 | 2.8 | 4.9 | 4.9 |
| NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON | NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON |
| TA | 121A | 32.5324 | –107.7851 | TA | TASL | 34.9454 | –106.4565 |
| TA | 122A | 32.6995 | –107.0005 | TA | TASM | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 123A | 32.6349 | –106.2622 | TA | TASN | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 124A | 32.7001 | –105.4544 | TA | TASO | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 125A | 32.6588 | –104.6573 | TA | TASP | 34.9455 | –106.46 |
| TA | 126A | 32.6462 | –104.0204 | TA | TVZX | 34.0733 | –106.9196 |
| TA | 127A | 32.6764 | –103.3575 | TA | X21A | 34.4457 | –107.7857 |
| TA | 128A | 32.6213 | –102.485 | TA | X22A | 34.5058 | –107.0102 |
| TA | 221A | 32.0094 | –107.7782 | TA | X23A | 34.581 | –106.1881 |
| TA | 222A | 32.1046 | –107.1013 | TA | X24A | 34.5646 | –105.4349 |
| TA | 223A | 32.0062 | –106.4276 | TA | X25A | 34.5271 | –104.6621 |
| TA | 224A | 32.076 | –105.5226 | TA | X26A | 34.5508 | –103.8103 |
| TA | 225A | 32.1101 | –104.8229 | TA | X27A | 34.6469 | –103.0974 |
| TA | 226A | 32.0618 | –104.1014 | TA | X28A | 34.5185 | –102.1973 |
| TA | 226B | 32.0778 | –104.1654 | TA | Y21A | 34.0087 | –107.674 |
| TA | 227A | 32.012 | –103.2924 | TA | Y22A | 33.937 | –106.9652 |
| TA | 228A | 32.118 | –102.5918 | TA | Y22C | 34.0741 | –106.9211 |
| TA | 324A | 31.4425 | –105.4828 | TA | Y22D | 34.0739 | –106.921 |
| TA | 325A | 31.3711 | –104.9712 | TA | Y22E | 34.0742 | –106.9208 |
| TA | 326A | 31.3165 | –103.9786 | TA | Y22F | 34.0741 | –106.9209 |
| TA | 327A | 31.3691 | –103.4923 | TA | Y23A | 33.9315 | –106.0549 |
| TA | 328A | 31.3818 | –102.8097 | TA | Y24A | 33.9257 | –105.4361 |
| TA | 425A | 30.7862 | –104.9857 | TA | Y25A | 33.9229 | –104.6928 |
| TA | 426A | 30.6689 | –104.0293 | TA | Y26A | 33.9232 | –103.8246 |
| TA | 427A | 30.8498 | –103.4018 | TA | Y27A | 33.8839 | –103.1633 |
| TA | 428A | 30.7263 | –102.6847 | TA | Y28A | 33.9086 | –102.2479 |
| TA | 526A | 30.0609 | –104.0898 | TA | Z21A | 33.3086 | –107.6712 |
| TA | 527A | 30.1456 | –103.6119 | TA | Z22A | 33.2555 | –106.9639 |
| TA | 528A | 30.1615 | –102.788 | TA | Z23A | 33.2621 | –106.2319 |
| TA | 529A | 30.1246 | –102.2204 | TA | Z24A | 33.3298 | –105.3649 |
| TA | 626A | 29.554 | –104.1335 | TA | Z25A | 33.2797 | –104.7171 |
| TA | 627A | 29.4528 | –103.3887 | TA | Z26A | 33.2716 | –103.9798 |
| TA | 628A | 29.4862 | –102.8885 | TA | Z27A | 33.315 | –103.2145 |
| TA | MSTX | 33.9696 | –102.7724 | TA | Z28A | 33.2884 | –102.3866 |
| NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON | NETWORK | STATION | LAT | LON |
| XR | SC04 | 34.5228 | –105.8119 | XR | SC40 | 32.9317 | –103.54 |
| XR | SC05 | 34.5715 | –105.0554 | XR | SC41 | 32.9833 | –103.2056 |
| XR | SC06 | 34.5145 | –104.2664 | XR | SC42 | 32.8728 | –102.8612 |
| XR | SC07 | 34.1838 | –105.6877 | XR | SC43 | 32.9426 | –102.5369 |
| XR | SC08 | 34.1567 | –105.4697 | XR | SC44 | 32.7572 | –105.947 |
| XR | SC09 | 34.1517 | –105.0013 | XR | SC45 | 32.6337 | –105.1552 |
| XR | SC10 | 34.1937 | –104.6666 | XR | SC46 | 32.654 | –104.3614 |
| XR | SC11 | 34.2323 | –104.2959 | XR | SC47 | 32.629 | –103.6257 |
| XR | SC12 | 34.2148 | –103.9116 | XR | SC48 | 32.6899 | –102.905 |
| XR | SC13 | 34.2135 | –103.5269 | XR | SC49 | 32.443 | –106.064 |
| XR | SC14 | 33.9682 | –105.7695 | XR | SC50 | 32.3895 | –105.6153 |
| XR | SC15 | 33.8308 | –105.0255 | XR | SC51 | 32.3673 | –105.1718 |
| XR | SC16 | 33.8903 | –104.3043 | XR | SC52 | 32.488 | –104.8272 |
| XR | SC17 | 33.893 | –103.5446 | XR | SC53 | 32.3766 | –104.3192 |
| XR | SC18 | 33.8774 | –102.8409 | XR | SC54 | 32.2837 | –104.0398 |
| XR | SC19 | 33.5188 | –105.9744 | XR | SC55 | 32.1712 | –103.6733 |
| XR | SC20 | 33.6042 | –105.5935 | XR | SC56 | 32.3554 | –103.3986 |
| XR | SC21 | 33.5975 | –105.1655 | XR | SC57 | 32.3691 | –102.8513 |
| XR | SC22 | 33.5682 | –104.7542 | XR | SC58 | 32.2888 | –102.5482 |
| XR | SC23 | 33.5995 | –104.3282 | XR | SC59 | 31.9694 | –105.1481 |
| XR | SC25 | 33.5806 | –103.5482 | XR | SC60 | 32.0937 | –104.4877 |
| XR | SC26 | 33.5044 | –103.1184 | XR | SC61 | 31.9895 | –103.6911 |
| XR | SC27 | 33.5385 | –102.8207 | XR | SC62 | 32.0119 | –102.9373 |
| XR | SC28 | 33.5662 | –102.4915 | XR | SC63 | 31.8029 | –104.8464 |
| XR | SC29 | 33.3102 | –105.6705 | XR | SC64 | 31.6996 | –104.4258 |
| XR | SC30 | 33.2738 | –105.17 | XR | SC65 | 31.727 | –104.0178 |
| XR | SC31 | 33.259 | –104.3415 | XR | SC66 | 31.6679 | –103.7363 |
| XR | SC32 | 33.1939 | –103.5979 | XR | SC67 | 31.7051 | –103.3951 |
| XR | SC33 | 33.2334 | –102.8343 | XR | SC68 | 31.8027 | –102.77 |
| XR | SC34 | 32.9513 | –105.8163 | XR | SC69 | 31.6905 | –102.588 |
| XR | SC35 | 32.9369 | –105.5153 | XR | SC70 | 31.3663 | –103.7374 |
| XR | SC36 | 33.0053 | –105.18 | XR | SC71 | 31.6463 | –103.0655 |
| XR | SC37 | 32.937 | –104.6192 | XR | SC72 | 31.1096 | –103.6346 |
| XR | SC38 | 32.9288 | –104.3402 | XR | SC73 | 30.9611 | –102.9875 |
| XR | SC39 | 33.0286 | –103.8453 | XR | SC74 | 31.0024 | –102.6771 |
| XR | SC75 | 31.8742 | –105.952 |
