DOCSLIB.ORG

Process Benefits of Using Biomass Pellets in a Biorefinery

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Process Benefits of Using Biomass Pellets in a Biorefinery PROCESS BENEFITS OF USING BIOMASS PELLETS IN A BIOREFINERY A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science By Ramsharan Pandey In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Major Department: Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering April 2019 Fargo, North Dakota North Dakota State University Graduate School Title PROCESS BENEFITS OF USING BIOMASS PELLETS IN A BIOREFINERY By Ramsharan Pandey The Supervisory Committee certifies that this disquisition complies with North Dakota State University’s regulations and meets the accepted standards for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: Dr. Scott W. Pryor Chair Dr. Igathinathane Cannayen Dr. Ghasideh Pourhashem FakharLangeroudi Approved: 04/11/2019 Dr. Kenneth J. Hellevang Date Department Chair ABSTRACT Pelleted biomass can help simplify biomass supply systems and reduce downstream processing costs that are vital for the development of commercial biorefineries. This study is based on comparison of process benefits and economic factors of using loose and pelleted biomass over a range of low to high pretreatment severity and hydrolysis enzyme loadings. Use of pelleted biomass provides flexibility either to reduce pretreatment severity, enzyme loadings, hydrolysis time, or combinations of these. Either enzyme loadings can be reduced by 80% or hydrolysis times reduced by 58% with the use of pelleted biomass. A comparative techno- economic analysis using each form of biomass reveals that using pelleted biomass is economically beneficial. The minimum ethanol selling price for loose biomass was found to be $4.41/gal ethanol and $3.83/gal ethanol for pelleted biomass. The economic study suggests that optimizing conversion processes could lower the final ethanol costs even further. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like the express my sincere gratitude to my major advisor Dr. Scott W Pryor for his support, guidance, and encouragement during my graduate study. He has been a true inspiration and was always open for discussions whenever I had problems. Without his motivation, I would not have got this far. Thanks to my committee members Dr. Igathinathane Cannayen and Dr. Ghasideh Pourhashem for their valuable suggestions. Special thanks to Dr. Ghasideh Pourhashem for guiding me through my second paper. I would also like to thank Dr. Nurun Nahar for her guidance in lab works, results interpretation, and also in writing. Thanks to all my family members and friends for their support and encouragement throughout this process. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ x LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES .................................................................................................... xi LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES.................................................................................................. xii 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 1.1. References ............................................................................................................................ 3 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 4 2.1. Biomass Sources .................................................................................................................. 5 2.1.1. Dedicated energy crops ................................................................................................. 5 2.1.2. Agricultural crops .......................................................................................................... 5 2.1.3. Agriculture crop residues .............................................................................................. 5 2.1.4. Forestry residues ............................................................................................................ 5 2.1.5. Aquatic plants ................................................................................................................ 6 2.1.6. Biomass processing residues ......................................................................................... 6 2.1.7. Municipal waste............................................................................................................. 6 2.1.8. Animal waste ................................................................................................................. 6 2.2. Uses of Biomass ................................................................................................................... 6 2.3. Current Trends ...................................................................................................................... 7 2.3.1. Starch and sugar feedstocks – first generation biofuel .................................................. 7 2.3.2. Cellulosic feedstocks – second generation biofuel ........................................................ 7 2.4. Conversion Processes ........................................................................................................... 8 2.4.1. Combustion.................................................................................................................... 8 v 2.4.2. Gasification and pyrolysis ............................................................................................. 8 2.4.3. Biochemical conversion ................................................................................................ 9 2.5. Biomass Composition .......................................................................................................... 9 2.6. Biomass Densification/Size Reduction .............................................................................. 10 2.6.1. Advantages of size reduction and densification .......................................................... 11 2.6.2. Pelletization ................................................................................................................. 12 2.7. Biomass Pretreatment ......................................................................................................... 13 2.7.1. Methods of pretreatment.............................................................................................. 14 2.7.2. Pretreatment selection ................................................................................................. 17 2.8. SAA Pretreatment .............................................................................................................. 18 2.9. Enzymatic Hydrolysis ........................................................................................................ 19 2.9.1. Principle of hydrolysis ................................................................................................. 20 2.9.2. Factors affecting enzymatic hydrolysis ....................................................................... 21 2.10. Effect of Pelletization and Pretreatment on Enzymatic Hydrolysis ................................. 22 2.11. Techno-economic Analysis of Producing Ethanol ........................................................... 27 2.12. References ........................................................................................................................ 31 3. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND OBJECTIVES ..................................................................... 39 3.1. Problem Statement ............................................................................................................. 39 3.2. Hypotheses ......................................................................................................................... 42 3.3. Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 42 3.4. References .......................................................................................................................... 43 4. QUANTIFYING REDUCTIONS IN SOAKING IN AQUEOUS AMMONIA PRETREATMENT SEVERITY AND ENZYMATIC HYDROLYSIS CONDITIONS FOR CORN STOVER PELLETS ................................................................................................ 45 4.1. Abstract .............................................................................................................................. 45 4.2. Keywords ........................................................................................................................... 45 vi 4.3. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 46 4.4. Materials and Methods ....................................................................................................... 49 4.4.1. Raw material ................................................................................................................ 49 4.4.2. Biomass moisture content...........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What Is Still Limiting the Deployment of Cellulosic Ethanol? Analysis of the Current Status of the Sector
    applied sciences Review What is still Limiting the Deployment of Cellulosic Ethanol? Analysis of the Current Status of the Sector Monica Padella *, Adrian O’Connell and Matteo Prussi European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate C-Energy, Transport and Climate, Energy Efficiency and Renewables Unit C.2-Via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, Italy; [email protected] (A.O.); [email protected] (M.P.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 16 September 2019; Accepted: 15 October 2019; Published: 24 October 2019 Abstract: Ethanol production from cellulosic material is considered one of the most promising options for future biofuel production contributing to both the energy diversification and decarbonization of the transport sector, especially where electricity is not a viable option (e.g., aviation). Compared to conventional (or first generation) ethanol production from food and feed crops (mainly sugar and starch based crops), cellulosic (or second generation) ethanol provides better performance in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions savings and low risk of direct and indirect land-use change. However, despite the policy support (in terms of targets) and significant R&D funding in the last decade (both in EU and outside the EU), cellulosic ethanol production appears to be still limited. The paper provides a comprehensive overview of the status of cellulosic ethanol production in EU and outside EU, reviewing available literature and highlighting technical and non-technical barriers that still limit its production at commercial scale. The review shows that the cellulosic ethanol sector appears to be still stagnating, characterized by technical difficulties as well as high production costs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sustainability of Cellulosic Biofuels
    The Sustainability of Cellulosic Biofuels All biofuels, by definition, are made from plant material. The main biofuel on the U.S. market is corn ethanol, a type of biofuel made using the starch in corn grain. But only using grain to produce biofuels can lead to a tug of war between food and fuel sources, as well as other environmental and economic challenges. Biofuels made from cellulosic sources – the leaves, stems, and other fibrous parts of a plant – have been touted as a promising renewable energy source. Not only is cellulose the most abundant biological material on Earth, but using cellulose to produce biofuels instead of grain can have environmental benefits. Cellulosic biofuel sources offer a substantially greater energy return on investment compared to grain-based sources. However, environmental benefits are not guaranteed. The environmental success of cellulosic biofuels will depend on 1) which cellulosic crops are grown, 2) the practices used to manage them, and 3) the geographic location of crops. Both grain-based and cellulosic biofuels can help lessen our use of fossil fuels and can help offset carbon dioxide emissions. But cellulosic biofuels are able to offset more gasoline than can grain-based biofuels – and they do so with environmental co-benefits. Cellulosic Biofuels Help Reduce Competition for Land Cellulosic fuel crops can grow on lands that are not necessarily suitable for food crops and thereby reduce or avoid food vs. fuel competition. If grown on land that has already been cleared, cellulosic crops do not further contribute to the release of carbon to the atmosphere. Because many cellulosic crops are perennial and roots are always present, they guard against soil erosion and better retain nitrogen fertilizer.
    [Show full text]
  • For Cellulosic Ethanol Production 1 DESCRIPTION of the Formicobio
    Appendix 1 formicobio™ technology 1 (2) for cellulosic ethanol production 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE formicobio™ TECHNOLOGY Chempolis’ formicobio™ is a technology for the production of cellulosic sugars and further ethanol. The technology has been specially developed for non-food raw materials (e.g. bamboo, bagasse, straws, oil palm biomass, and other agricultural residues), and it is based on selective fractionation of biomass with fully recoverable biosolvent containing formic acid. The formicobio™ technology avoids the main problems associated with other technologies developed for non-food raw materials and represents a true third- generation (3G) technology for the production of cellulosic sugars and further ethanol. The technology enables co-production of platform chemicals, such as acetic acid and furfural, which are used as raw materials in the production of paints, adhesives, and plastics, and as solvent and raw material for resins. Furfural can also be converted into synthetic diesel or gasoline ingredient by hydrogenation. In addition, combustion of co-produced solid biofuel (biocoal) can generate all the energy needed in biorefinery, with some surplus to be used in other production. The formicobio™ technology offers two principal options for the production of cellulosic ethanol: a) Production of ethanol from cellulose and chemicals from hemicelluloses b) Production of ethanol from cellulose and hemicelluloses with co-production of chemicals from hemicelluloses The principle of the technology (Option a) has been described as a simple block diagram in the picture below. The main steps in the process are the following: ‐ Selective fractionation of biomass with a fully recoverable biosolvent (i.e. formicodeli™). Fractionation takes place in a much lower temperature and pressure than pretreatment in typical 2G technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing a Wood Pellet/ Densified Biomass Industry in Washington State: Opportunities and Challenges
    Developing a Wood Pellet/ Densified Biomass Industry in Washington State: Opportunities and Challenges A Report to the Washington State Legislature December 2012 Page 1 Densified biomass: Part of Washington’s energy solution The Washington State University (WSU) Energy Program was directed by the Washington State Legislature [3ESHB-2127, section 603 (8)] to conduct a study of densified biomass as a renew- able fuel for heating homes, businesses and other facilities in our state. This report to Governor Chris Gregoire and the Legislature presents a summary of the WSU Energy Program’s densified biomass study findings. What is densified biomass? Washington’s pellet mill industry has shrunk by Raw biomass materials, such as forest slash and one-third in recent years, primarily due to the construction waste, are irregular in shape, low facilities’ debt loads. in energy density, greatly affected by moisture, • In 2009, three mills – located in Omak, and can be difficult to transport. Shelton and Tacoma – had a combined capacity of 180,000 tons per year. Another Biomass densification solves these problems by mill in Skagit County was in the permitting compressing sawdust and chipped wood to process, but never opened. create solid biofuel pellets that provide consis- • By 2012, the state had only two operating tent quality, low moisture content, high energy mills – Olympus Pellets in Shelton and density and homogenous size and shape. Manke in Tacoma – with a combined Densification increases the energy density of capacity of 160,000 tons per year. biomass by approximately 10 to 15 percent, so more heat is produced per unit of pellets This report provides insights to reinvigorate burned than if the same amount of raw wood the densified biomass/wood pellet industry in was burned.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Biodiesel and Renewable Di
    141.422 Definitions for KRS 141.422 to 141.425. As used in KRS 141.422 to 141.425: (1) "Annual biodiesel and renewable diesel tax credit cap" means: (a) For calendar years beginning prior to January 1, 2008, one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000); (b) For the calendar year beginning on January 1, 2008, five million dollars ($5,000,000); (c) For calendar years beginning on or after January 1, 2009, but before January 1, 2021, ten million dollars ($10,000,000); (2) "Annual biodiesel, renewable diesel, and renewable chemical production tax credit cap" means, for calendar years beginning on or after January 1, 2021, ten million dollars ($10,000,000); (3) "Annual cellulosic ethanol tax credit cap" means five million dollars ($5,000,000), unless the annual cellulosic ethanol tax credit cap is modified pursuant to KRS 141.4248, in which case the cap established by KRS 141.4248 shall be the annual cellulosic ethanol tax credit cap for that year. Any adjustments to the annual cellulosic ethanol tax credit cap made pursuant to KRS 141.4248 shall be made on an annual basis and shall not carry forward to subsequent years; (4) "Annual ethanol tax credit cap" means five million dollars ($5,000,000), unless the annual credit cap is modified pursuant to KRS 141.4248, in which case the cap established by KRS 141.4248 shall be the annual ethanol tax credit cap for that year. Any adjustments to the annual ethanol tax credit cap made pursuant to KRS 141.4248 shall be made on an annual basis and shall not carry forward to subsequent years;
    [Show full text]
  • Simulating Pelletization Strategies to Reduce the Biomass Supply Risk at America’S Biorefineries
    Simulating Pelletization Strategies to Reduce the Biomass Supply Risk at America’s Biorefineries Shane Carnohan, WSU Jacob J. Jacobson, INL Andrew Ford, WSU Allyson Beall, WSU Environmental Science Graduate Program, Washington State University Pullman, Washington 99164-4430 U.S.A. Phone: +1(509) 330-6486 Email: [email protected] May 28, 2014 Abstract Demand for cellulosic ethanol and other advanced biofuels has been on the rise, due in part to federal targets enacted in 2005 and extended in 2007. The industry faces major challenges in meeting these worthwhile and ambitious targets. The challenges are especially severe in the logistics of timely feedstock delivery to biorefineries. Logistical difficulties arise from seasonal production that forces the biomass to be stored in uncontrolled field-side environments. In this storage format physical difficulties arise; transportation is hindered by the low bulk density of baled biomass and the unprotected material can decay leading to unpredictable losses. Additionally, uncertain yields and contractual difficulties can exacerbate these challenges making biorefineries a high-risk venture. Investors’ risk could limit business entry and prevent America from reaching the targets. This paper explores pelletizer strategies to convert the lignocellulosic biomass into a denser form more suitable for storage. The densification of biomass would reduce supply risks, and the new system would outperform conventional biorefinery supply systems. Pelletizer strategies exhibit somewhat higher costs, but the reduction in risk is well worth the extra cost if America is to grow the advanced biofuels industry in a sustainable manner. 1. INTRODUCTION Organization of the Paper The paper begins by introducing federal biofuel policy targets initiated with the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005 and adjusted in 2007 with the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 19: Pelleting DDGS Diets for Poultry
    CHAPTER 19 Pelleting DDGS Diets for Poultry Introduction production rates and pellet durability index (PDI) compared with dry-conditioning (Skoch et al., 1981). After steam is ALTHOUGH DDGS IS AN ECONOMICAL ENERGY AND DIGESTIBLE applied to the mash inside the conditioner, the moist, hot NUTRIENT SOURCE in poultry diets, diet inclusion rates are mash ows into the pelleting chamber where it passes often limited to less than 10 percent of the diet because of through a metal die to form pellets. As the pellets exit the concerns of achieving desired pellet quality and pellet mill die, they enter a cooler to reduce their temperature from 80 throughput. As a result, the ability of feed manufacturers to 90°C down to 8°C above ambient temperature (Zimonja and poultry producers to capture greater economic value et al., 2007), along with reducing moisture from 15 to 17 from using higher dietary inclusion rates is diminished percent down to 10 to 12 percent using a stream of ambient because of the diet inclusion constraints imposed on DDGS air (Robinson, 1976). Fines collected in the cooler are to meet desired pellet quality and production efciencies in returned to the pellet chamber to be subsequently reformed commercial feed mills. into pellets. For some poultry feeding applications, the cool dry pellets pass through a crumbler to form crumbles Pelleting is the most common thermal processing method (broken pellets). used in manufacturing poultry feeds (Abdollahi et al., 2013), and provides the advantage of improved feed conversion resulting from reduced feed wastage and improved Factors Affecting Pellet Durability, Energy digestibility of energy and nutrients which has partially been Consumption and Production Rate attributed to the partial gelatinization of starch (Richert and DeRouchey, 2010; NRC, 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • History of Pelleting
    History of pelleting BY DOM CASTALDO REVIEWED AND EDITED BY CHARLES STARK, CASSANDRA JONES, AND ADAM FAHRENHOLZ extrusion process greatly enhanced feed In the past 50 years, considerable changes have digestibility and improved handling, extruders were occurred in the structure of animal agriculture. No expensive and complicated to operate with early longer are agricultural animals produced to any 20th century technology. scale in “back yard” type production settings. Rather, animal production has evolved into a highly According to Pitsch, one of the first successful integrated volume-based business. This is pellet mills was a molding machine in which two particularly true for the swine and poultry industries counter-rotating rollers with pockets, formed and where essentially every phase of production is pressed mash into wafers (see Figure 1-1). The owned and/or controlled by a single entity. wafers had a much lower density than modern feed pellets, which provided no advantage to feed With the wholesale consolidation of the meat, milk, transportation. Also, the mash was not conditioned and egg production industries, feed manufacturing with heat and moisture; therefore, the “wafering” has become more industrialized. Though today, process did not greatly enhance nutrient utilization. there are fewer feed mills in operation, feed production has increased and continues to grow. Figure 1-1. Diagram of a mold type pellet mill. This general shift from on-farm or small- cooperative type feed processing operations to larger industrial-type feed manufacturing facilities has made processing technologies, such as pelleting, more economically feasible. As such, the pelleting process has become a standard feed processing technique.
    [Show full text]
  • The Implications of Increased Use of Wood for Biofuel Production
    Date Issue Brief # ISSUE BRIEF The Implications of Increased Use of Wood for Biofuel Production Roger A. Sedjo and Brent Sohngen June 2009 Issue Brief # 09‐04 Resources for the Future Resources for the Future is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that, through its social science research, enables policymakers and stakeholders to make better, more informed decisions about energy, environmental, natural resource, and public health issues. Headquartered in Washington, DC, its research scope comprises programs in nations around the world. 1616 P Street NW Washington, DC 20036 202-328-5000 www.rff.org PAGE 2 SEDJO AND SOHNGEN | RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE The Implications of Increased Use of Wood for Biofuel Production Roger A. Sedjo and Brent Sohngen1 Introduction The growing reliance in the United States and many other industrial countries on foreign petroleum has generated increasing concerns. Since the 1970s, many administrations have called for energy independence, with a particular focus on petroleum. Although energy sources are many, the transport sector is driven largely by petroleum. Despite calls for reduced oil imports, the United States increasingly depends on foreign supply sources. General concerns about the security of petroleum supply are compounded by added concerns about the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from fossil energy, including petroleum. While the United States did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, efforts are increasing to find alternatives to petroleum as the dominant transport fuel. The major impediment to alternative fuels is generally their higher costs as well as the existing infrastructure, which has been developed to facilitate a petroleum‐driven economy. Europe is moving to supplement fossil fuel use with renewables, including biomass and particularly wood, in energy and heating functions in part through direct and indirect subsidies (e.g., Sjolie et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Factors Affecting Pellet Quality
    Factors affecting pellet quality BY KEITH C. BEHNKE, PHD REVIEWED AND EDITED BY ADAM FAHRENHOLZ, CHARLES STARK, AND CASSANDRA JONES assembly, and reviewing those figures will help the elleting has been, and continues to be, a popular P reader further understand the following discussions. processing technique in feed manufacturing. In basic terms, pelleting converts a finely-ground Depending upon the physical characteristics of blend of ingredients into dense, free-flowing the feed, a lesser or greater proportion of the work agglomerates (pellets). There are many reasons done by the pellet mill is used for compression. used to justify the process, but it may be appropriate For example, if the feed mix contains a high level to list just a few: of fibrous ingredients such as bagasse, bran or • Improved animal performance; ground alfalfa, the mill will expend a large • Decreased feed wastage; amount of energy simply compressing the mash to • Reduced selective feeding; the density of the subsequent pellet. Conversely, • Improved bulk density; for a relatively dense feed such as high grain and • Better material handling characteristics; soy meal, the mill will expend a lesser amount of • Destruction of deleterious organisms; and energy for compression and a greater amount for • Customer expectations. throughput. Pelleting operations are not without cost. It is a The “extrusion area” is the point at which the mash fairly expensive process in terms of both capital and has reached pellet density and begins to flow variable costs, but the expense is usually justified in through the die holes. There are many physical improved plant profit as well as animal forces that must be dealt with in the pelleting performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Biomass Energy in Pennsylvania: Implications for Air Quality, Carbon Emissions, and Forests
    RESEARCH REPORT Biomass Energy in Pennsylvania: Implications for Air Quality, Carbon Emissions, and Forests Prepared for: Prepared by: December 2012 The Heinz Partnership for Endowments Public Integrity Pittsburgh, PA by Mary S. Booth, PhD The Biomass Energy in Pennsylvania study was conducted by Mary S. Booth, PhD, of the Partnership for TABLE OF CONTENTS Policy Integrity. It was funded by the Heinz 4 Executive Summary Endowments. 4 Central findings 8 Recommendations 10 Chapter 1: Biomass Energy — The National Context 11 The emerging biomass power industry 11 Cumulative demand for “energy wood” nationally 14 Chapter 2: Carbon Emissions from Biomass Power 15 The Manomet Study 18 Chapter 3: Pollutant Emissions from Biomass Combustion 19 Particulate matter 20 Particulate matter emissions from small boilers 20 Use of pellets to reduce emissions and the carbon dilemma 22 Particulate matter controls for large boilers 22 Controls for other pollutants 24 Chapter 4: Biomass Combustion Impacts on Human Health 25 Special characteristics of biomass emissions 26 Diesel emissions from biomass harvesting and transport 27 Chapter 5: Policy Drivers for Biomass Power in Pennsylvania 28 Bioenergy in Pennsylvania’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard 29 Pennsylvania’s Climate Action Plan 30 Blue Ribbon Task Force on the low-use wood resource 31 Financial incentives for biomass and pellet facilities 31 Pennsylvania’s “Fuels for Schools and Beyond” program 32 Penn State University’s Biomass Energy Center 33 Chapter 6: Biomass Supply and Harvesting in Pennsylvania
    [Show full text]
  • Infograph Wood.Pdf
    Brazil is a global reference in the planting of trees for industrial purposes which are used to produce wood panels, laminate flooring, pulp, paper, charcoal and biomass – items that are present in our homes and our daily lives. The planted tree industry has invested in technology to 30 m FOREST-BASED turn the waste and by-products of these processes into innovative, renewable products that are essential for the development of a low-carbon economy. Many of these products are still in the research and development stage, or are being produced on an incipient scale. As investments are made in innovative technologies, the products from this industry will move out of the laboratories PRODUCTS toward new markets and different segments, providing additional benefits to society as a whole. Products already Products in the research and development on the market stage or produced on an incipient scale Honey SECTORS OF USE Aviation Electronics Flowers Civil construction Pharmaceutical and Printing/Publishing medical 25 m Food Furniture Seeds Automotive Chemicals Cosmetics and personal Textiles hygiene Various industries Fruits Essential oils Natural fabric dyes Oils FOOD Leaves Cellulose is used as an Cellulosic ethanol ingredient in various food products. In ice cream, Pig iron syrups, dairy cream and juices, it acts as a stabilizer and provides Smoke Flavorings consistency. It is also Charcoal added to grated cheese Preservatives to prevent moisture Crown Pyroligneous absorption and clumping. extract Cellulose is also a source of fiber that comprises Energy whole food products. Combustion Smoked delicacies use a flavoring extracted from MDP/HDP burning wood during the process of charcoal making.
    [Show full text]