## 3 Results and Discussion
### Thermal Properties of Green Composites  
Figure 9 shows the DSC curves of the analyzed PHBV films and their green composites that were compatibilized with ESAO and with TGIC and DCP. Table 3 gathers the thermal properties that were obtained from the curves. As it can be seen in Figure 9a, PHBV crystallized during cooling, showing a T\({}_{\text{c}}\) of approximately 79 \({}^{\circ}\)C. Both the incorporation of MFC, as well as the two reactive compatibilizing agents, slightly affected the crystallization of the biopolymer chains. In particular, an increase in the crystallization process was observed in the composite films of PHBV with 2.5 wt % of MFC and with 5 wt % of MFC compatibility with TGIC and DCP, reaching values close to 82 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 80 \({}^{\circ}\)C, respectively. A similar effect was reported in the study of [PERSON] et al. [55], indicating that the presence of ultrathin structures of cellulose may favor the crystallization of PHBV by reducing the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline
**Film** & \(L^{\star}\) & \(a^{\star}\) & \(b^{\star}\) & \(C_{ab^{\star}}\) & \(h_{ab^{\star}}\) & \(\Delta E^{\star}\) \\ \hline PHBV & 88.41 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(-\)0.94 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 10.20 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 10.24 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 95.25 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & - \\ PHBV\_2.5\%MFC & 87.75 \(\pm\) 0.38 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(-\)1.12 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 11.52 \(\pm\) 0.87 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 11.57 \(\pm\) 0.86 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 95.59 \(\pm\) 0.47 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.53 \(\pm\) 0.87 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ PHBV\_5\%MFC & 88.40 \(\pm\) 0.27 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(-\)0.91 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 10.22 \(\pm\) 0.98 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 10.25 \(\pm\) 0.99 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 95.10 \(\pm\) 0.32 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.27 \(\pm\) 0.41 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ PHBV\_10\%MFC & 87.89 \(\pm\) 0.50 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(-\)0.86 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 11.42 \(\pm\) 0.64 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 11.45 \(\pm\) 0.64 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 94.34 \(\pm\) 0.41 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.35 \(\pm\) 0.75 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ PHBV\_ESAO & 89.11 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(-\)1.10 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 8.75 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 8.82 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 97.15 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 1.66 \(\pm\) 0.34 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ PHBV\_76 IC+DCP & 89.39 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(-\)1.22 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 8.80 \(\pm\) 0.44 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 8.88 \(\pm\) 0.44 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 97.91 \(\pm\) 0.38 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 1.75 \(\pm\) 0.52 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ PHBV\_5\%MFC\_ESAO & 88.73 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(-\)1.14 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 11.24 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 11.30 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 95.76 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.12 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ PHBV\_5\%MFC\_TGIC+DCP & 88.86 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(-\)1.38 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 9.30 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 9.40 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 98.47 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 1.12 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular} \(L^{\star}\) lightness (\(L^{\star}\) = 0 black, \(L^{\star}\) = 100 white), \(a^{\star}\) coordinate between red (\(+\)) and green (\(-\)), \(b^{\star}\) between yellow (\(+\)) and blue (\(-\)), hue or tone (\(h_{ab^{\star}}\)), color saturation or chroma (\(C_{ab^{\star}}\)). Mean values and standard deviation. \({}^{\text{a}}\)-d Different superscripts in the same column indicate significant differences between formulations (\(p\) < 0.05).  
\end{table}