Reviewer Comments - EERE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2011 Algae Platform Review – Reviewer Comments Reviewer Comments are direct transcripts of commentary and material provided by the Platform’s Review Panel. They have not been edited or altered by the Biomass Program. system designs and modes of operation that propagate the effective number of environmental cues, that are so often responsible for toxin production and pathogen survivability. We intend that experiments in Phase II and III help us better define culture and environmental variables that impact toxin and VOC production, the presence of pathogens, and heavy metal accumulation 2. Technical Progress and Accomplishments Please evaluate the degree to which the project has made progress in its objectives and stated project management plan has met its objectives in achieving milestones and overcoming technical barriers Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 4 The project has been operational for limited time. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 1 The project started in September 2010 and is 10% complete. The lack of background knowledge of feedstock algae limits progress. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 4 PIs are actively conscripting sites for sampling and collecting data. Method development in the lab is progressing well, analytical data being analyzed Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 4 New project; little basis for evaluation. Even weighting of scores in the average overall score require a low score here. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 4 Progress is limited because the project began in Sept 2010. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 3 But its a new project. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 4 Good progress in identifying potential risks. Getting meaningful information to quantify and mitigate these risk appears to be very problematic. Presenter Response We are fully aware of the common feedstock algae that are currently being investigated, but many companies are using variant strains, very novel organisms, or different phyla (cyanobacteria), and this information is not something that is intended for the public domain. Furthermore, it is not clear that the common feedstock strains are not capable of producing toxins. We have performed an exhaustive literature search and the team’s collective knowledge forms a very strong basis from which to proceed. It is beyond the scope of the project to completely quantify and mitigate the potential risks, but rather to provide the preliminary data required to enable assessment. This is the main thrust of our proposal. We have identified potential risks long before this project was funded, and there is a high likelihood that characterization of this risk will require novel approaches. Each problem (novel toxin isolation, purification and structural characterization; detection and quantification of pathogens in a novel Page 160 of 223
2011 Algae Platform Review – Reviewer Comments Reviewer Comments are direct transcripts of commentary and material provided by the Platform’s Review Panel. They have not been edited or altered by the Biomass Program. environment) has its own set of needs. We will develop analytical measuring tools such as MS, NMR, LC, DNA extraction techniques, Q-PCR, etc. to quantify these risks. Mitigation is very dependent on the threat. It is important to understand that in chemistry structure and function are intimately associated. One typically cannot mitigate toxicity until the compound responsible is characterized, detectible, and capable of being monitored. These are the products we are pursuing. 3. Project Relevance The project both identifies with and contributes to meeting the platform goals and objectives of the Biomass Program Multi-Year Program Plan The project has considered applications of the expected outputs Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 4 The relevance is quite High. I believe it could be linked in somewhat better fashion to the experimental approaches and experimental outcomes. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 3 The potential for "rogue" facilities to develop the types of problems framed in the report is high, but this seems less so for the funded DoE projects. More importantly, other DoE projects presenting at this meeting had excellent command of pathogenic problems and were developing appropriate technology to detect them. It is important to be aware of the large literature, facilities, and resources available on harmful algae and the excellent and long-standing analytical techniques for their detection. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 4 Address questions of potential risk early rather than late; provide data for future risk assessment. This project supports the goals of the Algae Platform and OBP Program by: Addressing the social sustainability of algae biofuel production Understanding the potential negative human health impacts of algae biofuel production—from biomass production through harvesting Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 3 It's important to look ahead to potential problems, but the state of algae biofuels development is so preliminary at this point, not much detail is warranted on human health effects. The inorganic water contaminants issues (eg, metals) would be good to assess in order to provide constraints to the current resource assessment projects. Potential use of pesticides/herbicides, as promoted by some groups, would be another topic to investigate to provide them with guidelines. The table listing pathogens and toxin producers is very excessive. Hopefully, this is showing a list of organisms standard to the the method (standard primers). Making special effort for most of the organisms listed (Slide 6) would be wasted effort because they would be no more likely to appear in algae ponds than other water bodies. This project should be a risk assessment desk study. Follow-up lab/field studies would expand knowledge in the areas with the most risk. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 3 Risk assessments are certainly relevant to overall program goals. However, it is unclear whether the results of this project will substantially contribute to the knowledge base. Page 161 of 223
Page 1 and 2:
2011 Biomass Program Algae Platform
Page 3 and 4:
2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 159: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223:
show all

Reviewer Comments - EERE

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?