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. Project: 9.5.1.5 Arizona State University Title: Sustainable Algal Biofuels Consortium Presenter: John McGowen Presentation Date: Thursday, April 07, 2011 Criteria Avg Score Std Deviation Count Approach 7.43 1.18 7 Progress 6.71 1.28 7 Relevance 7.43 0.90 7 Critical Success Factors 6.57 1.50 7 1. Project Approach The project performers have implemented technically sound research, development, and deployment approaches and demonstrated necessary results to meet their targets The project performers have identified a project management plan that includes well-defined milestones and adequate methods for addressing potential risks. Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 9 The Approaches are well developed and firmly tied to expected outcomes and deliverables. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 8 This project concentrates on feedstock development including developing a matrix of algal biomass produced under different growth/processing conditions; screening for lipases and application of commercial lipases; develop biochemical strategies for conversion of lipids to FAME etc. (the latter just starting). Excellent work to date, especially in terms of careful QC evaluation between labs of different partners and within labs, of different technicians. This is a model for all DoE funded projects, and helps to assure success of the project. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 7 SABC will examine multiple biomass samples to explore the possibility of extracting lipid and carbohydrate-based biofuels. Theirs is essentially a compositional analysis methods development, as well as development of methods for evaluation of productivity in growing algal cultures. Pretreatment steps will be employed that may eliminate need for drying biomass and offer lower cost and lower energy route to lipid extraction and conversion. Enzyme discovery will supplement commercial enzyme evaluation to facilitate conversion with heretofore unexplored biomass. SABC ought to talk with RAE, as they have developed method for the effective harvesting of microalgal biomass. Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 7 See Overall Impressions text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 8 Project approach and direction are sound and were presented well. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 8 This is a precisely focussed project, with obvious data and material controls put in place. Very smart to Page 26 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. look at whole cell conversion (i.e. use algal biomass similar to other biomass) coupled with the immediate testing against ASTM standards. The deconstruction of biomass is usefull as well (for eventual enzymatic hydrolysis to simple sugars) and couples this work with the tremendous amount of work already done on biomass (in this area). It is rather apparrant the system rules in this program. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 5 Excellent approach to working toward standardization of algae analytical techniques. Specific quantitative goals for the conversion processes should be defined and expressed. These goals should be based on a clear definition of quantitative feasibility parameters. Criteria for milestone decision should be defined based on these quantitative commercial feasibility goals. Presenter Response Thank you for the supportive comments and constructive feedback. We agree with the reviewer that establishing both goals and metrics for the conversion process will add value to the project. To compare conversion conditions that will allow down-selection to more effective conditions we’ll focus on component yield: 1. Mass of sugars released from pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis of algae. Treatments releasing ≥50% of the initial algal carbohydrate composition will be selected for further study. 2. Mass of lipid extracted from algal biomass either before or after pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis, based on a statistically relevant difference (≥20%) between treatments at 95% confidence level. These two metrics will allow for selection of conversion processes that will lead to deconstruction of algae providing both high lipid and carbohydrate removal across different growth regimes. While these criteria may identify effective pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis processes, it may not possible to link these targets to quantitative, commercial, feasible goals based on the lack of an industrial standard process. Additional criteria for measuring both goals and progress in the conversion task related to both enzyme discovery and enzyme efficacy in lipid/cell wall deconstruction are more difficult to quantify. Examples for a minimum benchmark for enzyme discovery: 1. Selection of 10 thermophilic fungal strains isolated from targeted screens, demonstrating enzymatic activity using processed algae (control, extracted, pretreated) for genomic sequencing. And for enzyme efficacy: 1. Demonstrate activity (protease amd or lipase) based on a statistically relevant difference (≥20%) compared to control conditions, at a 95% confidence interval. 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: 6 The project has not been in operation long enough to generate progress. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 8 Good progress and milestones are carefully spelled out. Project seems well managed and coordinated. Page 27 of 223
Page 1 and 2: 2011 Biomass Program Algae Platform
Page 3 and 4: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 25: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 77 and 78:
2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223:
show all

Reviewer Comments - EERE

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

Delete template?

Save as template?