A model of regolith and landscape evolution for the Girilambone region is derived from regolith–landform mapping and interpretation of drillhole information, the latter being underpinned by detailed petrography and Portable Infrared Mineral Analyser (PIMA) characterisation. The model is partly constrained by the interpretation of palynological, paleomagnetic, apatite fission-track, and airborne magnetic data. The model interprets the architecture of the three main sediment sequences and explains their derivation: a possible Late Jurassic fluvial sequence, an Early Cretaceous estuarine–shallow-marine and fluviolacustrine sequence (both sequences being part of the Surat Basin), and a Late Pliocene to Holocene colluvial–alluvial sequence. Implications of this model are that much, if not all, of the Cobar Uplands was covered by a shallow sea in the Early Cretaceous, and that neotectonic reactivation of north-trending Paleozoic faults caused the formation of the north-plunging depressed zone that contains the Mulga–Tindarey Paleovalley System.

The precise geometric definition of palaeoshorelines/channels is important in the exploration for placer, uranium, and groundwater exploration in Australia. This can be achieved through the combination of several geological and geophysical methods. Major refinements in remote sensing and geophysical techniques, data processing, sedimentology and computer-aided interpretations are today aiding the derivation of effective, economic and efficient models for exploring prospective terrains. New discoveries of world-class beach placer deposits in the eastern margin of the Eucla Basin, for example, have demonstrated the success and effectiveness of using these models by recognising the geoscientific signatures of placer-bearing shorelines. An improved understanding of placer models provides an important step toward the development of predictive exploration models that will enable the industry to prospect buried beach placers economically.

The Cobar uplands, in the northwest of the Lachlan Fold Belt, lie at the northwestern end of the Canobolas Divide, which is a major drainage divide between the Murray (south) and Darling (north) River catchments of central NSW (Figure 1). The Cobar region is framed by the Darling River, which arcs around the Cobar upland from the north to the west, the Bogan River, a major north flowing tributary to the Darling River which bounds the region to the east, and the west flowing Lachlan River to the south. The streams that drain radially from the Tarran Hills in the Erimeran Granite south of Nymagee, the highest area in the Cobar uplands region, become tributaries to one of these main drainage systems. Major faults and bedrock strike define the north-northwest trending physiography of the Cobar region (Figure 2) forming ridges which flank the granite intrusion in the highest part of the region.

Letters, Comments, and Corrections1 September 1972Gentamicin and Kanamycin NomogramsROGER W. JELLIFFE, M.D., DANIEL IVLER, PH.D.ROGER W. JELLIFFE, M.D.Search for more papers by this author, DANIEL IVLER, PH.D.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-77-3-480 SectionsAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail ExcerptTo the editor: The article by Chan, Benner, and Hoeprich, describing their nomogram for gentamicin dosage in patients with renal insufficiency ( 1 ), was read with interest. Their nomogram is useful, and the data seem to be solid. Their discussion, however, might have been enhanced by a more complete reference to similar work done by others. For example, probably the first description of the relationship between the kinetic properties of drugs and proper dosage regimens was done by Augsberger for cardiac glycosides (2). This approach was refined and extended by the late Ekkehard Kruger-Thiemer into a formal theory of...References1. CHAN R, BENNER E, and HOEPRICH P: Gentamicin therapy in renal failure: a nomogram for dosage. Ann Intern Med 76:773-778, 1972 LinkGoogle Scholar2. AUGSBERGER A: Quantitatives zur Therapie mit Herzglycosiden. Klin Wochenschr 32:945, 1954 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. KRUGER-THIEMER E: Formal theory of drug dosage regimens. J Theor Biol 13:212, 1966 CrossrefGoogle Scholar4. VAN ROSSUM J: Pharmacokinetics of accumulation. J Pharm Sci 57:2162-2164, 1968 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. DEFARES J and SNEDDON I: The Mathematics of Medicine and Biology. Chicago, Year Book Medical Publisher, Inc., 1961, pp. 255-259 Google Scholar6. JELLIFFE R: An improved method of digoxin therapy. Ann Intern Med 69:703-717, 1968 LinkGoogle Scholar7. JELLIFFE R, BUELL J, and KALABA R: An improved method of digitoxin therapy. Ann Intern Med 72:453-464, 1970 LinkGoogle Scholar8. JELLIFFE R, BUELL J, and KALABA R: A computer program for digitalis dosage regimens. Mathematical Biosci 9:179-193, 1970 CrossrefGoogle Scholar9. MAWER G, KNOWLES B, and LUCAS S: Computer-assisted prescribing of kanamycin for patients with renal insufficiency. Lancet 1:12-15, 1972 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. JELLIFFE R, BUELL J, and KALABA R: Computer-assisted kanamycin dose programs (abstract). Clin Res 18:137, 1970 Google Scholar11. JELLIFFE R, KNIGHT R, and BUELL J: Computer assistance for gentamicin therapy (abstract). Ibid., p. 441 Google Scholar12. JELLIFFE R: Nomograms for kanamycin and gentamicin therapy. Abstracts of the Eleventh Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Atlantic City, N. J., 19-22 October 1971, p. 63 Google Scholar13. CHAN R, BENNER E, and HOEPRICH P: A nomogram to guide safe, effective gentamicin therapy in patients with renal failure. Ibid. Google Scholar14. IVLER D, STAMBOULIAN D, and JELLIFFE R: Studies with computer programs for kanamycin and gentamicin therapy. Ibid., p. 64 Google Scholar15. CUTLER R and ORME B: Correlation of serum creatinine concentration and kanamycin half-life. JAMA 209:539, 1969 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16. GINGELL J and WATERWORTH P: Dose of gentamicin in patients with normal renal function and renal impairment. Br Med J 2:19, 1968 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17. MCHENRY M, GAVAN T, and GIFFORD R: Gentamicin dosages for renal insufficiency. Adjustments based on endogenous creatinine clearance and serum creatinine concentration. Ann Intern Med 74:192-197, 1971 LinkGoogle Scholar18. GYSELYNCK A, FLEET W, and CUTLER R: Gentamicin pharmacokinetics: distribution volume, renal and plasma clearance in normal subjects of renal insufficiency (abstract). Clin Res 19:183, 1971 Google Scholar19. JADRNÝ L: Odhad glomerulárni filtrace z kreatininémie. Cas Lek Cesk 104:947-949, 1965 MedlineGoogle Scholar This content is PDF only. To continue reading please click on the PDF icon. Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: ROGER W. JELLIFFE, M.D.; DANIEL IVLER, PH.D.Affiliations: Department of Medicine University of Southern California School of Medicine Los Angeles, Calif. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics 1 September 1972Volume 77, Issue 3Page: 480-481KeywordsDrugsGlycosidesPharmacokinetics ePublished: 1 December 2008 Issue Published: 1 September 1972 PDF downloadLoading ...

Gentamicin has been given to patients with compromised renal function or severe renal failure, in toxic or nearly toxic peak serum concentrations followed by long periods of subinhibitory serum levels. A nomogram to allow safe, inhibitory serum gentamicin levels (3 to 8 µg/ml) in a steady-state manner was developed. The nomogram regimen is based on an elimination constant (K2) for 8-hour periods, as developed from half-life values at various levels of Seventeen patients with renal failure and life-threatening infections caused by Gram-negative bacilli were treated according to the nomogram. All the infections were controlled, and serum gentamicin concentrations that were inhibitory yet nontoxic were documented in all patients, including two who had repeated hemodialysis.