San Antonio Pool of the Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer

The Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer in central Texas is typically defined as having three segments: the San Antonio, the Barton Springs, and the Northern segment, which are separated by groundwater divides or points of discharge. The San Antonio segment of the Edwards Aquifer is defined as extending from east of Brackettville in the west to Hays County in the east. The San Antonio segment has been further delineated into two pools, the San Antonio Pool and the Uvalde Pool, for water management purposes. The San Antonio Pool is the larger of the two pools and is recharged by the Dry Frio, Frio, Sabinal, Medina, Cibolo, Guadalupe, and Blanco River watersheds, in addition to direct recharge and flow from the Uvalde Pool via the Knippa Gap. To a lesser extent, interformational flow between units stratigraphically above and below the Edwards Formation limestone also occurs. The most prominent points of discharge from the San Antonio Pool are Comal, San Marcos, and Hueco Springs. San Pedro and San Antonio Springs in Bexar County discharge during periods of high stage in the aquifer. There are limited numbers of additional springs in the Frio River watershed with limited discharge. Significant water is discharged from the Medina Lake and Diversion Lake (downstream from Medina Lake dam) system via conduits and surface flow to recharge paleo-alluvial deposits (Leona Gravel) in the Medina River floodplain. This discharge had previously been assumed to recharge the Edwards Aquifer, but it continues downgradient in the Leona Gravel and is lost to the aquifer

San Antonio Pool of the Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer

The Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer in central Texas is typically defined as having three segments: the San Antonio, the Barton Springs, and the Northern segment, which are separated by groundwater divides or points of discharge. The San Antonio segment of the Edwards Aquifer is defined as extending from east of Brackettville in the west to Hays County in the east. The San Antonio segment has been further delineated into two pools, the San Antonio Pool and the Uvalde Pool, for water management purposes. The San Antonio Pool is the larger of the two pools and is recharged by the Dry Frio, Frio, Sabinal, Medina, Cibolo, Guadalupe, and Blanco River watersheds, in addition to direct recharge and flow from the Uvalde Pool via the Knippa Gap. To a lesser extent, interformational flow between units stratigraphically above and below the Edwards Formation limestone also occurs. The most prominent points of discharge from the San Antonio Pool are Comal, San Marcos, and Hueco Springs. San Pedro and San Antonio Springs in Bexar County discharge during periods of high stage in the aquifer. There are limited numbers of additional springs in the Frio River watershed with limited discharge. Significant water is discharged from the Medina Lake and Diversion Lake (downstream from Medina Lake dam) system via conduits and surface flow to recharge paleo-alluvial deposits (Leona Gravel) in the Medina River floodplain. This discharge had previously been assumed to recharge the Edwards Aquifer, but it continues downgradient in the Leona Gravel and is lost to the aquifer

Development Of A Finite-element Method Groundwater Flow Model For The Edwards Aquifer

The Edwards Aquifer Authority relies heavily on groundwater flow models to characterize groundwater flow conditions in the San Antonio segment of the Edwards Aquifer and to serve as the basis for predicting impacts of water-resource management scenarios. Currently, the Edwards Aquifer Authority uses a MODFLOW finite-difference model developed in 2004 by the U.S. Geological Survey to perform these water-resource management analyses. There are recognized limitations and shortcomings in the 2004 MODFLOW model, including questions about the conceptual model on which the numerical model is based

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib for the treatment of hospitalised adults with COVID-19 (COV-BARRIER): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

Background: Baricitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor with known anti-inflammatory properties. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in combination with standard of care for the treatment of hospitalised adults with COVID-19. Methods: In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, participants were enrolled from 101 centres across 12 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Hospitalised adults with COVID-19 receiving standard of care were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-daily baricitinib (4 mg) or matched placebo for up to 14 days. Standard of care included systemic corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone, and antivirals, including remdesivir. The composite primary endpoint was the proportion who progressed to high-flow oxygen, non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death by day 28, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. All-cause mortality by day 28 was a key secondary endpoint, and all-cause mortality by day 60 was an exploratory endpoint; both were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the safety population defined as all randomly allocated participants who received at least one dose of study drug and who were not lost to follow-up before the first post-baseline visit. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04421027. Findings: Between June 11, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 1525 participants were randomly assigned to the baricitinib group (n=764) or the placebo group (n=761). 1204 (79·3%) of 1518 participants with available data were receiving systemic corticosteroids at baseline, of whom 1099 (91·3%) were on dexamethasone; 287 (18·9%) participants were receiving remdesivir. Overall, 27·8% of participants receiving baricitinib and 30·5% receiving placebo progressed to meet the primary endpoint (odds ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·67 to 1·08], p=0·18), with an absolute risk difference of -2·7 percentage points (95% CI -7·3 to 1·9). The 28-day all-cause mortality was 8% (n=62) for baricitinib and 13% (n=100) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [95% CI 0·41-0·78]; nominal p=0·0018), a 38·2% relative reduction in mortality; one additional death was prevented per 20 baricitinib-treated participants. The 60-day all-cause mortality was 10% (n=79) for baricitinib and 15% (n=116) for placebo (HR 0·62 [95% CI 0·47-0·83]; p=0·0050). The frequencies of serious adverse events (110 [15%] of 750 in the baricitinib group vs 135 [18%] of 752 in the placebo group), serious infections (64 [9%] vs 74 [10%]), and venous thromboembolic events (20 [3%] vs 19 [3%]) were similar between the two groups. Interpretation: Although there was no significant reduction in the frequency of disease progression overall, treatment with baricitinib in addition to standard of care (including dexamethasone) had a similar safety profile to that of standard of care alone, and was associated with reduced mortality in hospitalised adults with COVID-19