Requests for heat capacity and phase state

Hello, I have found some literatures on Cp and enthalpy of chemical substances (because there is a little big difference between Cp and enthalpy of BioSTEAM and Aspen). I still have the following questions. May I consult you for the following questions:

a) For glucose, BioSTEAM uses solid glucose’s Hf and Cp, while Aspen uses liquid glucose’s Hf and Cp, resulting in differences in Hnet:
For example, the enthalpy of glucose at 100.758 degrees:
BioSTEAM:
Hf(s)+Cp_average(s)* Temperature variation
-1271100.0+245.73*（100.758-25）=-1252483.987
Aspen：
Hf(l)+Cp_average(l)* Temperature variation
-1275724.52+ 502.58*（100.758-25）=-1237650.06
The reality is that glucose seems to be in a dissolved state in solution, so should we model it in a solid state or in a liquid state?
b) For oligomers, ΔHf (L) in reporte is used for Hf in BioSTEAM, but Cp uses solid Cp like Glucose(s). Should Cp_average(l) also be used for H calculation (consistent with ΔHf (L)) (the Cp_average of GlucoseOligomer(l), MannoseOligomer(l) and GalactoseOligomer(l) in Aspen is 502.58, while the Cp_average(s) for BioSTEAM was 245.73)? I'm a little confused about this because oligomers in BioSTEAM are single phase, so the calculation of enthalpy is Hf+Cp_average* Temperature variation (the formula for calculating enthalpy when the phase state of a chemcial is identical to the reference state). But Hf(l) is used for oligomers, Cp(s) is used for oligomers, it seems that the enthalpy cannot be calculated directly by Hf+Cp_average* Temperature variation because above Hf and Cp is not the same phase. Unlike glucose and glucan, which both use solid Hf and solid Cp, so enthalpy can be directly calculated using Hf+Cp_average* Temperature variation.
Also, the default reference phase for AmmoniumAcetate appears to be solid state (phase_ref='s'), but Hf set (-154701) in chemics. py appears to be ΔHf (L) in the report, should it be set to ΔHf (s) i.e. 147163?
c) For NH3, CO2 and other gases dissolved in solution, if corresponding liquid state (NH3(l), CO2(l)) are used for modeling reaction, it seems necessary to manually set the phase state of the above gases to liquid as the default phase state is gas, otherwise gaseous Hf, gaseous Cp and Hf+Cp_average* Temperature variation will be still used to calculate enthalpy. Are the above gases also modeled as liquid state in the reaction of BioSTEAM cellulosic corn stover model?
d) For sucrose, the mean heat capacity of Aspen in liquid state was 444.23 and that of its solid state was 487.72, including 545.15 in solid state at 370K, compared with 531.53 (370K) in the paper (10.1016/j.tca.2014.05.029, Table 2), which was close to Aspen. But heat capacity is 466.89 in BioSTEAM, which seems to be somewhat large difference.
e) For Tar, the enthalpy of solid formation at 25 degrees is -182100 cal/mol in the report, but BioSTEAM directly copied Xylose, resulting in -249440 cal/mol. Is there a mistake?
In addition, if -182100 cal/mol ΔHf (L) is used, But Tar's Cp is a direct copy of Xylose (which is Cp(s)), so it seems that enthalpy cannot be calculated by Hf+Cp_average* Temperature variation directly because ΔHf is ‘l’ and Cp is ‘s’.
For Tar's Cp, BioSTEAM is a direct copy of Xylose (204.78), However, the temperature dependent correlation parameter of heat capacity was set in the Aspen model of Humbird et al., making Cp 174.45. So do you think there is need to fix it?
f) Cp for Furfural and Acetic acid, I compared to related articles. Date in Article 10.1016/j.fluid.2022.113656 (table 5) and 10.1021/je9006579 (table 1) is consistent with BioSTEAM. I'd like to provide them for you because they can be used as references for BioSTEAM like you give me before.
g) If I set only one reaction in reactor, and the feed temperature and the outlet stream temperature are equal, and no phase transition occurs, then is the Hnet of reactor the reaction heat of that only one reaction? I understand so, the feed temperature and the outlet stream temperature are equal, and when no phase transition occurs, it is the reaction heat that leads to the generation of Hnet.
h) In BioSTEAM, for the components dissolved in solution, such as acetate, NH3, CO2, O2, for the simulation of the reaction, is the liquid state of these components, such as acetate (l), NH3(l), CO2(l), O2(l), used to simulate the reaction in reactor?
i) For cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin, since they cannot be dissolved in solution, was these components modeled as a solid component in reaction? But for cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin, it appears that the reaction was modeled as liquid in BioSTEAM.
j) For cellulose oligomers and hemicellulose oligomers, it seems that the solid-state component is used to model the reaction. Is it because these components are insoluble in solution, so the solid-state component was used to model the reaction?
If so, for Sucrose -> HMF + Glucose + 2H2O, Sucrose and Glucose seems to be dissolved ingredients in solution. So why they were model as solid state? Shouldn't it be a matter of ignoring the solubility heats of Sucrose and Glucose, and then modeling them as Sucrose(l) and Glucose(l)?
k)
For Cp_average:
Why is 1.364 also assumed for monosaccharides? The paper “Explaining the heat capacity of wood constituents by molecular vibrations” seems not to mention monosaccharides, such as Glucose，Mannose，Xylose. Tabel 1 in the paper Studies on heat capacity of cellulose and lignin by differential scanning calorimetry seems to mention the Cp of Amorphous D-glucose is 2.222 and the Cp of c~ D-glucose anhydride crystal is 1.351.
Oligomers and dissolved lignin do not seem to be mentioned either, such as GlucoseOligomer，MannoseOligomer，XyloseOligomer. So why 1.364 are assumed for these components?
For the following components, the Cp_average between BioSTEAM and Aspen seems a little big.
GlucoseOligomer，MannoseOligomer，Glucose，Mannose, BioSTEAM is 245.73, Aspen is 502.58 (Aspen use liquid state Glucose and Mannose Cp, while BioSTEAM uses solid state Glucose and Mannose Cp)
XyloseOligomer，Xylose，BioSTEAM is 204.78，Aspen is 476.67.
SolubleLignin, BioSTEAM is 207.53，Aspen is 269.79 (Aspen use liquid state lignin Cp,while BioSTEAM copy Lignin(s))
HMF, BioSTEAM is 195.13 (BioSTEAM use Cp from thermosteam)，Aspen is 230.13 (defined by Humbird et.al)
Acetate，BioSTEAM is 137.40 (copy Acetic acid)，Aspen is 121.18 (from Aspen’s database)
For Hf:
Glucan(l), Mannan(l) and Galactan(l) adopt ΔHf (S) in report, but since it is l, shouldn't ΔHf (L) be used?
For the following components, the Hf between BioSTEAM and Aspen seems a little big.
For Glucose，BioSTEAM is -1271100，while Aspen is -1275724.52
For Sucrose(s), BioSTEAM is -2221200.0， Aspen is -2011859.74
For SolubleLignin，BioSTEAM is -452909.63，Aspen is -454838.91
For AceticAcid(l)，BioSTEAM is -483580.0，Aspen is -457113.49
For Acetate(l)，BioSTEAM is -483580.0，Aspen is -456328
l) The above difference between Cp_average and Hf seems to ultimately lead to a difference in reaction Hnet. Taking Xylan→Furfural+2H2O as an example, T= 373.91K, temperature variation is 373.91-298.15=75.76, and XYLAN reaction is 6.16kmol.
BioSTEAM:
Cp_average_Xylan=180.20, Cp_average_Furfural= 167.02, Cp_average_H2O= 75.50
Hf_ Xylan= -761906.4, Hf_ Furfural= -201600.0, Hf_ H2O= -285825.0
Hnet is [2*(-285825.0+75.5075.76) +（-201600.0+167.0275.76）-（-761906.4+180.2075.76）]6.16= -5558.52 kJ/h
Aspen:
Cp_average_Xylan= 174.45, Cp_average_Furfural= 155.44, Cp_average_H2O= 77.70
Hf_ Xylan= -761906.4, Hf_ Furfural= -199559, Hf_ H2O= -285800
Hnet is [2(-285800+77.7075.76) +（-199559+155.4475.76）-（-761906.4+174.4575.76）] *6.16=6654.69 kJ/h
The result is a large gap in Hnet, even one exothermic and one endothermic.

Thank you for your help. Wish you a good day.