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. Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 4 The only success factor listed on Slide 12 is that high biomass/lipid productivity strains are identified. The work plan does not show how this productivity is to be measured. Define further the methods for culturing/testing of promising strains. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 3 Critical success factors were identified, but there is no plan how these obvious factors will be overcome. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 4 Lipid content is the obvious factor, but there was no real correlation to the conditions one would find in a raceway. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 4 Proof that the screening system selects superior strains is a critical success factor that does not appear to be addressed. Presenter Response In contrast to the reviewer’s comment, that ‘critical success factors…tend to center on the laboratory experimentation itself’, the ongoing project is embedded in other collaborative algae biofuels activities such as the NAABB. The methodology to be developed is supposed to replace the Nile Red screen as an analytical method that is as fast the Nile Red analysis, but providing more information on the lipid composition at the same time. Although testing of novel strains is not part of the current project, it is done in this laboratory in other projects. In response to the request to describe the productivity of strains the following is provided: Biomass productivity is measured as accumulation of biomass as Ash Free Dry Weight (AFDW) per volume per time. Algal cultures of about 0.3 Liters are grown in bubbling columns provided with 1% CO2 in air and illuminated with daylight fluorescent lamps at an intensity of about 200 µE m-2 s-1. Cultures are kept in a water bath to regulate the temperature. Growth curves are based on the AFDW and lipid extractions are performed according to Bigogno [Bigogno, C., Inna Khozin, G., Sammy, B., Avigad,V., Zvi, C., 2002. Phytochemistry. 60 (5), 497-503]. From the biomass accumulation over time and the total lipid content at certain times during growth, the lipid productivities are being calculated. The PI agrees with the reviewer’s assessment that the screening, which is performed in the laboratory, does not have strong correlations to potential large-scale outdoor conditions. However, previous work of the PI on a saline water production strain has shown that the laboratory performance tests allow prediction of the strains behavior outdoors. Proof that the screening system used will select superior strains is not available yet as work on the proofof-concept relies on ongoing experiments in collaborating testbed facilities and is not part of this project. Although the proof-of-concept research is not directly part of this project, the results of that work will be the 'critical success factor'. However, the proof-of-concept work is in a stage too early to make any conclusions or predictions at this time. 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. Page 190 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. Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 The analytical methodology is a fine example of positive technology transfer. Data collection from a variety of samples gives some insight into the natural variations in lipid profiles that may be encountered. It may serve as a platform for further studies on improvements. Reviewer: 2 The project began very recently (September 2010). Reviewer: 4 Partners are present. Plan for feedback of information to Brooklyn College is not described. Reviewer: 5 No technology transfer partners were identified. No technology transfer (outside of publications) is likely. Reviewer: 6 Why not work with UTEX or other established collections? Why reinvent the wheel? Reviewer: 7 There are many strain screening efforts. Communication among the projects, particularly regarding validation of screening systems should be improved. Defintion of performance criteria necessary and sufficient to enable real-world cultivation is needed. Wti teh lare number of strains that have been sampeld and screened, a statisical measurement of biodiversity could be used to estimate the probablity of finding a wild type strain with necessary and sufficient traits throuigh continued bio-prospecting. Presenter Response For clarification, technology transfer has already occurred, because in the past several candidate strains were forwarded to collaborating laboratories for further testing. The new screening approach using the UHPLC-TOF-MS system and the resulting data will be shared and reported on for example at professional meetings such as the US DOE User Meeting in March 2011 in Walnut Creek, CA, USA and the 3rd Algae World Summit in May 2011 in San Diego, CA, USA. Testing of strains in larger facilities is a goal of the overall research effort of the PI regarding strain isolation/screening. Although not specifically mentioned previously and in contrast to one reviewer’s comment that ‘no technology transfer (outside of publications) is likely’, some candidate strains identified through the previous Nile Red screening process were already passed on to collaborating Air Force laboratories for further studies. The Air Force collaborators report back to the PI on the performance of the strains tested. The Material Transfer Agreements for strain transfer are already in place for Air Force facilities and are also now ready for the NAABB. Consequently, strains are already in the process to be transferred to NAABB testbed facilities. Possible NAABB testing sites are located in Texas, New Mexico, and/or Arizona. Results on testbed performance of new candidate strains will be reported back to this PI so that the isolation and screening efforts can be adjusted depending on the outcomes of the testing. Page 191 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:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 189: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 223: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
show all

Reviewer Comments - EERE

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?