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. 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 only been operational for a short time. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 3 This project began in September 2010, and the background knowledge of the PI should be strengthened(e.g., in literature review and consideration of appropriate and economical techniques for accomplishing goals). Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 4 Same as the project by Yeager. Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 2 New project. No need to assess. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 4 Progress is very limited because the project began in September 2010. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 3 Results are very preliminary with only a few animal cell culture experiments over 48 hours or so. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 4 Good progress in identifying potential risks. Getting meaningful information to quantify and mitigate these risk appears very problematic. Presenter Response 2. Technical Progress and Accomplishments We have conducted an extensive literature review that is ongoing in the fields of biogeochemistry of algae, aqueous geochemistry in saline waters, algal metals uptake, and impacts of metals on algal toxin production. A review of the literature was not expected to be a part of this review process, however, we are happy to provide this information if requested. We also note the work of our co-PI Moeller (et al.) regarding toxicology and the interface of metals and toxin production in algae [7, 8]. We also note that the very deep cold snap in January, February, and March across all parts of the country caused many producers to temporarily suspend operations; those that continued were found to have cultures unacceptable for sampling at that time (dead algae or very low densities). We are working hard to catch up with our producers to obtain samples of algae and water now that the weather is more amenable. We appreciate the reviewer’s positive comment. We would like to note that this project is intended as an early screening of potential risks, not a full risk assessment. Please also view Yeager’s comment responses, as well. We believe that it is appropriate for DOE to initiate human health effects research aligned with its new focus on algal biofuels. This assessment is intended as an initial scoping study and, as such, would not be handled by either the CDC or Departments of Public Health at this level. If significant hazards (e.g., a significant pathogen) are found, the CDC will be notified. DOE has a long tradition of sponsoring human health effects research related to special DOE activities, such as nuclear weapons work. Babetta Page 170 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. Marrone (the co-investigator leading the human cell toxicity testing at LANL) conducted research on human health effects from beryllium exposure, as well as low dose radiation exposure. Both projects were funded by DOE. If our research indicates that there are health concerns, then we predict that NIH (most likely the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences) would sponsor additional research, and that EPA would develop regulations governing worker exposure limits. The role of CDC would be to develop and disseminate health information and safety guidelines to workers in the algal industry, physicians, and the public. We believe that the DOE is performing a service to both state and federal health and regulatory agencies by being proactive in attempting to identify hazards that could be associated with their funded research projects, in collaboration with researchers who have considerable expertise in their fields. For example, Peter Moeller, our co-PI at NOAA, is an expert in algal toxicity, while many of the sites to be sampled are a part of the NAABB consortium. The deliverable of this project will be a report that describes our findings, and makes recommendations for next steps such as further research and cross-agency workshops to peer review our findings, and a possible framework for a risk assessment study of health impact from occupational exposure to algae in the context of the algal biofuels industry. Development of an actual risk assessment would most likely be a cross-agency activity, involving industrial hygienists, health professionals, industry, and scientists. (see section 6 below for references) 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: 3 The overall topic of Health Risk Assessment is highly relevant. The effects should be evaluated early on as well. The key is in selecting the right assessment techniques and criteria should be. The toxicolgy choices need to be explained as to the meanings of any outcomes. The selection of metals concentration is a good choice, but to re-study aqueous metal species chemistry is not worth doing. This information is well known already. To use XANES because there is an open available window on the beam line is unjustified. Give the slot to someone who really needs the time in the problem they are working on. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 2 Much is already known about the degree to which proposed feedstock algae accumulate materials/elements that are relevant to biofuels' facilities. New knowledge that will be helpful to biofuels' development requires close work with personnel on projects that are close to or at commercial scale. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 4 Same as the project by Yeager. Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 2 The project objectives are to identify potential human health risks (toxin and VOC production, human/mammalian cell toxicity, pathogens, metal accumulation/toxicity). What is the basis for thinking that any of these pose enough risk to warrant this sampling and algae production project? The study of culture media chemistry is worthwhile, but mostly from the standpoint of understanding trace nutrient availability and toxicity to algae. The level of risk to human health needs to be assessed in a desk study Page 171 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:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 169: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223:
show all

Reviewer Comments - EERE

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?