Reviewer Comments - EERE

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.
wastewater. Yes, it is impossible to mitigate uncharacterized risks. This is the main thrust of the proposal.
With new toxins/toxicity or the presence of human pathogens in novel environments, new approaches to
identify the risk and detect the culprit must be carried out first. We will develop analytical measuring
tools such as MS, NMR, LC, Q-PCR, etc. to achieve these goals. These tools, or adaptation of these tools,
will represent a key asset to performing more formal risk assessments.
4. Critical Success Factors
The project has identified critical factors, (including technical, business, market, regulatory, and legal
factors) that impact the potential technical and commercial success of the project
The project has presented adequate plans to recognize, address, and overcome these factors
The project has the opportunity to advance the state of technology and impact the viability of commercial
algal biomass feedstock supply and conversion, through one or more of the following:
i. Cross-Cutting Analysis (ex. economic analysis, sustainability analysis, resource assessments, risk
assessments)
ii. Feedstock Supply R&D (ex. biology, cultivation, resource use, biomass characteristics,
harvesting/dewatering)
iii. Downstream Refining R&D (ex. extraction, conversion, fuel, products, fuel/product infrastructure and
end-use)
iv. Environmental sustainability (example: water use, GMOs, energy consumption)
Reviewer Comments
Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 3
The CSFs are the same as the other presentation on this Project. See the same comments. I do not think
these adequately address the success of the project, which is of high significance overall, but requires
some real assessment of what success means in the human health assessment. Input from EPA would be
expected to be important.
Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 2
The project appears unaware of the NOAA Oceans and Human Health Centers, as well as the vast
experience of the FDA and CDC in the stated area of research of the project.
Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 4
There is a need to establish the strains of algae to be investigated and justify the selection. Are the strains
to be investigated the ones that would be used for biofuels production? If not, the work would find no
application.
Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 3
See other comments.
Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 3
Critical success factors were identified but the plans to address a major obstacle (relevance of assessment
results) seem inadequate.
Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 3
No real information was given as to the pre-existing knowledge of toxins to screen for, or as to the reason
behind the screens chosen. This part of lacking.
Page 163 of 223