Modelling basin level allocation of water in the Murray-Darling Basin in a world of uncertainty, Murray-Darling Program Working Papers WPM05-1, Risk and Sustainable Management Group, 8 February 2005

Abstract: The Murray-Darling Basin comprises over 1 million km2; it lies within four states and one territory; and over 12, 800 GL of irrigation water is used to produce over 40% of the nation's gross value of agricultural production. This production is used by a diverse collection of some-times mutually exclusive commodities (e.g. pasture; stone fruit; grapes; cotton and field crops). The supply of water for irrigation is subject to climatic and policy uncertainty. Variable inflows mean that water property rights do not provide a guaranteed supply. With increasing public scrutiny and environmental issues facing irrigators, greater pressure is being placed on this finite resource. The uncertainty of the water supply, water quality (salinity), combined with where water is utilised, while attempting to maximising return for investment makes for an interesting research field. The utilisation and comparison of a GAMS and Excel based modelling approach has been used to ask: where should we allocate water?; amongst what commodities?; and how does this affect both the quantity of water and the quality of water along the Murray-Darling river system?

Influence of differently oriented dentin surfaces and the regional variation of specimens on adhesive layer thickness and bond strength

Statement of the Problem: Adhesive systems can spread differently onto a substrate and, consequently, influence bonding. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of differently oriented dentin surfaces and the regional variation of specimens on adhesive layer thickness and microtensile bond strength (MTBS). Materials and Methods: Twenty-four molars were sectioned mesiodistally to expose flat buccal and lingual halves. Standardized drop volumes of adhesive systems (Single Bond [SB] and Prime & Bond 2.1 [PB2.1]) were applied to dentin according to the manufacturer`s instructions. Teeth halves were randomly divided into groups: 1A-SB/parallel to gravity; 1B-SB/perpendicular to gravity; 2A-PB2.1/parallel to gravity; and 2B-PB2.1/perpendicular to gravity. The bonded assemblies were stored in 37 degrees C distilled water for 24 hours and then sectioned to obtain dentin sticks (0.8 mm(2)). The adhesive layer thickness was determined in a light microscope (x200), and after 48 hours the specimens were subjected to MTBS test. Data were analyzed by one-way and two-way analysis of variance and Student-Newman-Keuls tests. Results: Mean values (MPa +/- SD) of MTBS were: 39.1 +/- 12.9 (1A); 32.9 +/- 12.4 (1B); 52.9 +/- 15.2 (2A); and 52.3 +/- 16.5 (2B). The adhesive systems` thicknesses (mu m +/- SD) were: 11.2 +/- 2.9 (1A); 18.1 +/- 7.3 (1B); 4.2 +/- 1.8 (2A); and 3.9 +/- 1.3 (2B). No correlation between bond strength and adhesive layer thickness for both SB and PB2.1 (r = -0.224, p = 0.112 and r = 0.099, p = 0.491, respectively) was observed. Conclusions: The differently oriented dentin surfaces and the regional variation of specimens on the adhesive layer thickness are material-dependent. These variables do not influence the adhesive systems` bond strength to dentin. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Adhesive systems have different viscosities and spread differently onto a substrate, influencing the bond strength and also the adhesive layer thickness. Adhesive thickness does not influence dentin bond strength, but it may impair adequate solvent evaporation, polymer conversion, and may also determine water sorption and adhesive degradation over time. In the literature, many studies have shown that the adhesive layer is a permeable membrane and can fail over timebecause ofits continuous plasticizing and degradation when in contact with water. Therefore, avoiding thick adhesive layers may minimize these problems and provide long-term success for adhesive restorations.

Should optional properties be used in conceptual modelling? A theory and three empirical tests

An important feature of some conceptual modelling grammars is the features they provide to allow database designers to show real-world things may or may not possess a particular attribute or relationship. In the entity-relationship model, for example, the fact that a thing may not possess an attribute can be represented by using a special symbol to indicate that the attribute is optional. Similarly, the fact that a thing may or may not be involved in a relationship can be represented by showing the minimum cardinality of the relationship as zero. Whether these practices should be followed, however, is a contentious issue. An alternative approach is to eliminate optional attributes and relationships from conceptual schema diagrams by using subtypes that have only mandatory attributes and relationships. In this paper, we first present a theory that led us to predict that optional attributes and relationships should be used in conceptual schema diagrams only when users of the diagrams require a surface-level understanding of the domain being represented by the diagrams. When users require a deep-level understanding, however, optional attributes and relationships should not be used because they undermine users' abilities to grasp important domain semantics. We describe three experiments which we then undertook to test our predictions. The results of the experiments support our predictions.