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. Presenter Response 4. Critical Success Factors Results of the study will be made public through literature publication and reporting to the DOE. We expect that any indication of relevant system risks may then be taken up in depth by interested parties such as the EPA. Please see response to comments in sections above, particularly to comments in section 3: Project Relevance, and Section 1: Approach. We fully agree with the reviewers that growers should use nearby, readily available resources whenever possible. We do not recommend that the SLAC facilities be used for everyday analysis of water chemistry; the analyses that this facility performs will be used as appropriate in this study to answer topics relevant to speciation and subsequent toxicity. 5. Technology Transfer and Collaborations Please comment on the degree to which the project adequately interfaces and coordinates with other institutions and projects to provide additional benefits to the Biomass Program, such as publications, awards, or others. Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 This program should have key interactions with others in the Biomass Program, as well as with EPA. This level of interaction is not developed in the review. Reviewer: 2 This project would have more of a chance for useful tech transfer if the project were more sensitive to existing technologies and literature. Reviewer: 3 Same as the project by Yeager. Reviewer: 4 Nice interface with other researchers. Reviewer: 5 Technology transfer efforts were not adequately addressed. Reviewer: 6 Not able to judge. Reviewer: 7 Unless or until the algae biofuel technology comes together, risk assesment will not be ready for external communication. Presenter Response The project has extensive interactions with other institutions working under OBP, particularly NAABB consortium institutions. Because material transfer agreements are not in place for all participants, we have not disclosed all participants at this early stage of the project. In the future this information will be made available. Transfer of specific new technologies is not a primary focus of this project. Transfer of information related to risk is our focus here. However, LANL and SRNL, in particular have strong Page 174 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. technology transfer support in the event that transfer is appropriate. We agree that extensive concurrence between research and commercial entities is crucial for effective risk assessment. 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 The Program itself is of high priority and relevance. It is a credit that it is being addressed earlier rather than later. Unfortunately the strategies and tactics are not well-developed in enough detail to allow appreciation of the importance. The gratuitous use of XANES is counter to the value of the project. Reviewer: 2 This project has potentially important goals but needs to reconsider work in the context of potential problems mentioned above. Reviewer: 3 The entirety of this project appears to be the same as that by Chris Yeager. Is the Algal Biomass Program funding the same project twice? Reviewer: 4 See other comments. Reviewer: 5 The relevance of this project was completely unconvincing. My blunt impression was that this algae project was designed to support cell toxicity and heavy metal lab groups (rather than the other way around). Reviewer: 6 This work is much better placed with the CDC or the Centers for Ocean and Human Health. Reviewer: 7 Maybe more could be learned from surveying risks in existing systems such as wastewater treatment or aquaculture, thentyring to define and measure risks for an unknown system. Presenter Response Note this section includes references for the other sections. Please see responses to comments above regarding XANES. We regard the evaluation of this technology as neither gratuitous nor inappropriate. Please also see comments regarding Approach and Background from Yeager, as well as comment responses above and comment responses by Yeager et al. The project by Yeager and Sullivan is one single project. The separation of the project into two presentations appears to have been a confusing factor for the review panel. We would request that a single presentation be “tag teamed” in the future. Please also see comment responses by Yeager and Moeller, our Co-PI who is a member of the NOAA Center for Ocean and Human Health. Most interactions with growers are expected to be publicly available. However, specific agreements can be made (e.g. PII, NDAs) to allow appropriate review of future work. The data can be sent to reviewers Page 175 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:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 173: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 223: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
show all

Reviewer Comments - EERE

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?