## 3 Results and Discussion
Similarly, this Table also shows a good fit between the experimental data of an aqueous fraction of bio-oil simulated by three organic compounds (15 wt.% acetic acid, 2.5 wt.% acetol, and 2.5 wt.% glucose) at 800 \({}^{\circ}\)C and a space velocity of 10 h\({}^{-1}\) of the same Ni-based catalyst used for glycerol. Both experimental studies were carried out at 240 bar. Likewise, it also shows the excellent match between the experiment and the simulation output using cornstarch as the biomass with a feed concentration of 10.4 wt.% at 715 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 280 bar. As a second result, the overall energy balance does not change from one arrangement to another, since the enthalpy is a thermodynamic state function, and the system outlet is always the same for all arrangements and regardless of the decomposition in the RYield. For a conventional component, the absolute enthalpy is calculated using elements at 1 atm and 25 \({}^{\circ}\)C (standard reference state), involving only two inputs for a condensed state, such as the feedstock used in SCWG: the chemical energy of formation from the elements and the thermal energy or sensitive heat required to heat the components from 25 \({}^{\circ}\)C to the final temperature at constant pressure. Other inputs, such as the energy required for the phase change, heat of mixing, or pressure correction, barely affect the absolute enthalpy of solids and liquids. For a nonconventional component that leads to the use of an RYield block, the model used by Aspen to compute the enthalpy is based on correlations for the heat of combustion, the standard formation enthalpy, and the heat capacity. Table 2 shows the heat loads of each process unit for all arrangements, where the ash enthalpy is not considered in the analysis due to its small value. The RYield + RGibbs can be arranged to use the sensitive heat term of the feed stream for heat integration in such a way that the RYield contribution is just the difference between the standard formation enthalpies of streams leaving and entering this block. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Compound**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Experimental Yield**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Equilibrium Yield**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Deviation**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Reference**} \\  & **(mol/mol)** & & **(mol/mol)** & \\ \hline H\({}_{2}\) & 5.27 & 5.320 & \(-\)0.050 & [39] \\ CO\({}_{2}\) & 2.11 & 1.990 & 0.120 & [39] \\ CO & 0.27 & 0.790 & \(-\)0.520 & [39] \\ CH\({}_{4}\) & 0.32 & 0.220 & 0.100 & [39] \\ H\({}_{2}\) & 2.41 & 2.400 & 0.010 & [40] \\ CO\({}_{2}\) & 1.48 & 1.290 & 0.190 & [40] \\ CO & 0.29 & 0.580 & \(-\)0.290 & [40] \\ CH\({}_{4}\) & 0.45 & 0.430 & 0.020 & [40] \\ H\({}_{2}\) & 0.55 & 0.552 & \(-\)0.002 & [42] \\ CO\({}_{2}\) & 0.35 & 0.345 & 0.005 & [42] \\ CO & 0.03 & 0.027 & 0.003 & [42] \\ CH\({}_{4}\) & 0.06 & 0.076 & \(-\)0.016 & [42] \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparison of the composition of the product gas in experimental and simulation studies. ARR-1 and ARR-2, typically found in the literature, give the same RYield contribution to the energy balance, regardless of the temperature profile in the system, including the temperature in the RYield block and the temperature at the HE01 outlet. The heater placed at the inlet of the RYield block in ARR-2 to simulate the heating of the feed stream does not work with nonconventional solids, and thus the exchanged heat is null. Therefore, ARR-1 and ARR-2 are the same arrangement, close to that shown in Figure 2, and none allow for heat integration with respect to the organic stream fed to the process (clearly, HE01 can be considered for it due to liquid water). The operation of RYield and RGibbs blocks at the same temperature and pressure as the real reactor (ARR-1) hinders the use of a heat exchanger for heat integration with a process stream, such as that leaving the SCW reactor. In this configuration, the independent water stream can be used for energy integration.