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. We will be laying the groundwork to enable a formal risk assessment, which will indeed require multiple agencies and much more work. 6. Overall Impressions Please provide an overall evaluation of the project, including strengths, weaknesses, the project approach, scope, and any other overall comments. Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 This Project is important, and credit should be given for addressing it earlier than later. But the importance is not supported by the approaches and plans expressed. They need to be detailed and wellthought through to deliver impactful data. Input from other agencies is highly desirable. Reviewer: 2 The expertise of the PIs may not fit the goals of the project. Reviewer: 3 The entirety of this project appears to be the same as that by Enid (Jeri) Sullivan. Is the Algal Biomass Program funding the same project twice? Methods to be employed include DNA extraction and PCR array methodology for detection and quantification of pathogenic and toxin producing microorganisms. More information is needed to permit assessment of the applicability of this approach for the purposes of the program. Reviewer: 4 See other comments. Reviewer: 5 The presentation failed to convince me of the value of this project. Reviewer: 6 The project starts in the absence of proper incorporation of existing information. Without question the Centers of Oceans and Human Health have a plethora of information on this, as does the CDC. Reviewer: 7 Maybe more could be learned from surveying risks in existing systems such as wastewater treatment or aquaculture, then trying to define and measure risks for an unknown system. Presenter Response This project is of poor quality due to the mismatched expertise of the PIs … See comments under approach and progress concerning the teams expertise. This project and Jeri’s are a single collaborative project. We each (SRNL and LANL) receive ~$400,000 per year for two years, but the project is coordinated by Sullivan and Yeager as a single project. Of the amount sent to SRNL, roughly 1/3 funds the NOAA effort and 1/3 funds the Texas A&M effort. The presentation failed to convince me of the value of this project. The PI was under the impression that the reviewers had access to the project proposals. Thus, most of the presentation was aimed at providing a VERY cursory review of the project and highlighting results to date and hurdles that we have encountered. This is a new research area that covers a lot of ground; we understand that it would be difficult to evaluate without access to the proposal. We have attached project overview/justification and Project Approach Summaries to assist further review Page 166 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. of the project. Without question the Centers of Oceans and Human Health have a plethora of information… No they don’t. Ironically, they come to us (NOAA) for what little there is on the new toxin producers and there is precious little out there. Must coordinate with the Centers of Oceans and Human Health. Coordination is already underway. However as pointed out earlier, if the DOE is to fund biofuel research, they are also responsible for the risk assessment. Why look at microalgae samples, as opposed to the water column. Very good question. We are looking at both. Cell mass and the culture medium (water) are matched during the sampling process. Both are extracted in identical fashion and worked up extensively. Very little known? Very little is known about the potential human health risks associated with algae production systems. Apart from Moeller’s lab there is no ongoing effort within NOAA to address novel toxins or toxicity. There is virtually no information on the topic that is germane to the biofuel issues. Not OK to just operate on the possibility that its there… We believe there is good reason to perform the stated research based on the existing body of knowledge and our collective experience. But the truth of the matter is – we don’t know what we will find. Isn’t that why we perform research? One might also argue that it is critical to operate on the possibility that it is there. For example, the literature that does exist provides many examples of toxicity being turned on/off for reasons few if any understand. The body of knowledge out there is incorporated in the PI’s experience in this realm. Novel toxins have no literature on them by default. Neither does their production, why they are produced, how they operate (mode of action), production cues, stability etc. – all unknown. Maybe more could be learned from surveying risks in existing systems such as wastewater treatment or aquaculture…. Good point. Algae ponds are distinctly different from wastewater systems and aquaculture. Paul Zimba has extensive experience working with the aquaculture industry and views this project as extremely relevant and unique. During the course of this project, we intend to collaborate closely with at least one algae production system using wastewater and will engage with wastewater professionals involved (we are currently talking with Patrick Hatcher, also funded through this program, of Old Dominion University concerning a collaboration in this regard with Hopewell's Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant). We are also planning to contact the City of Sunnyvale Wastewater Treatment Plant, which uses algae in its secondary treatment stage. We can certainly learn much and apply existing data, techniques, etc. from the wastewater field. It is our hope that the information gleaned from this project can be used by professionals from other agencies (EPA, CDC, NOAA, etc.) to perform a proper risk assessment (if warranted). Project: 9.6.1.7 Los Alamos National Laboratory Title: Human Health Risk Assessment of Algal Production Systems: Toxins and Toxic Components, Harmful VOCs, Metal Speciation/Bioconcentration, and Pathogenic Microorganisms Associated with Large-Scale Algae Cultivation-LANL WBS#9.6.1.7 Presenter: Enid (Jeri) Sullivan Presentation Date: Friday, April 08, 2011 Criteria Avg Score Std Deviation Count Approach 2.71 1.03 7 Progress 3.43 0.73 7 Relevance 3.00 1.07 7 Page 167 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:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 165: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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?