Reviewer Comments - EERE
Reviewer Comments - EERE
Reviewer Comments - EERE
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
2011 Algae Platform Review – <strong>Reviewer</strong> <strong>Comments</strong><br />
<strong>Reviewer</strong> <strong>Comments</strong> are direct transcripts of commentary and material provided by the Platform’s<br />
Review Panel. They have not been edited or altered by the Biomass Program.<br />
2. Technical Progress and Accomplishments<br />
Please evaluate the degree to which the project has<br />
made progress in its objectives and stated project management plan<br />
has met its objectives in achieving milestones and overcoming technical barriers<br />
<strong>Reviewer</strong> <strong>Comments</strong><br />
<strong>Reviewer</strong>: 1 Criteria Score: 4<br />
The project has only been operational for a short time.<br />
<strong>Reviewer</strong>: 2 Criteria Score: 3<br />
This project began in September 2010, and the background knowledge of the PI should be<br />
strengthened(e.g., in literature review and consideration of appropriate and economical techniques for<br />
accomplishing goals).<br />
<strong>Reviewer</strong>: 3 Criteria Score: 4<br />
Same as the project by Yeager.<br />
<strong>Reviewer</strong>: 4 Criteria Score: 2<br />
New project. No need to assess.<br />
<strong>Reviewer</strong>: 5 Criteria Score: 4<br />
Progress is very limited because the project began in September 2010.<br />
<strong>Reviewer</strong>: 6 Criteria Score: 3<br />
Results are very preliminary with only a few animal cell culture experiments over 48 hours or so.<br />
<strong>Reviewer</strong>: 7 Criteria Score: 4<br />
Good progress in identifying potential risks. Getting meaningful information to quantify and mitigate<br />
these risk appears very problematic.<br />
Presenter Response<br />
2. Technical Progress and Accomplishments<br />
We have conducted an extensive literature review that is ongoing in the fields of biogeochemistry of<br />
algae, aqueous geochemistry in saline waters, algal metals uptake, and impacts of metals on algal toxin<br />
production. A review of the literature was not expected to be a part of this review process, however, we<br />
are happy to provide this information if requested. We also note the work of our co-PI Moeller (et al.)<br />
regarding toxicology and the interface of metals and toxin production in algae [7, 8]. We also note that<br />
the very deep cold snap in January, February, and March across all parts of the country caused many<br />
producers to temporarily suspend operations; those that continued were found to have cultures<br />
unacceptable for sampling at that time (dead algae or very low densities). We are working hard to catch<br />
up with our producers to obtain samples of algae and water now that the weather is more amenable. We<br />
appreciate the reviewer’s positive comment. We would like to note that this project is intended as an early<br />
screening of potential risks, not a full risk assessment. Please also view Yeager’s comment responses, as<br />
well. We believe that it is appropriate for DOE to initiate human health effects research aligned with its<br />
new focus on algal biofuels. This assessment is intended as an initial scoping study and, as such, would<br />
not be handled by either the CDC or Departments of Public Health at this level. If significant hazards<br />
(e.g., a significant pathogen) are found, the CDC will be notified. DOE has a long tradition of sponsoring<br />
human health effects research related to special DOE activities, such as nuclear weapons work. Babetta<br />
Page 170 of 223