## 3 Results and Discussion
### CH/CNC and CH/CD Edible Films
#### 3.1.4 Mechanical Properties
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Proportion of**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\Delta\)E} & \multirow{2}{*}{**WI (\%)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**C*} & \multirow{2}{*}{**YI**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Transparency**} \\  & & & & & & & **(Abs-mm\({}^{-1}\), 550 nm)** \\ \hline CH & 100/0 & 36.17 \(\pm\) 0.33 \({}^{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{A}}\) & 58.87 \(\pm\) 0.33 \({}^{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{A}}\) & 1.61 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{A}}\) & 3.55 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{A}}\) & 1.350 \(\pm\) 0.106 \({}^{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{A}}\) \\  & 75/25 & 30.42 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{B}}\) & 60.23 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{A}}\) & 2.10 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{A}}\) & 4.75 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{A}}\) & 11.450 \(\pm\) 5.020 \({}^{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{A}}\) \\ CH/CNC & 50/50 & 30.37 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{B}}\) & 60.39 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{A}}\) & 1.47 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{A}}\) & 3.29 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{A}}\) & 11.113 \(\pm\) 0.265 \({}^{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{A}}\) \\  & 25/75 & 30.83 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{B}}\) & 59.94 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{A}}\) & 1.40 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{A}}\) & 3.05 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{A}}\) & 8.700 \(\pm\) 0.636 \({}^{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{A}}\) \\  & 75/25 & 27.07 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\mathrm{c}\mathrm{B}}\) & 64.14 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{B}}\) & 0.85 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{A}}\) & 1.83 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{A}}\) & 2.267 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{A}}\) \\ CH/CD & 50/50 & 28.29 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\mathrm{c}\mathrm{B}}\) & 63.02 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{B}}\) & 1.45 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{A}}\) & 3.28 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{A}}\) & 1.833 \(\pm\) 0.094 \({}^{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{A}}\) \\  & 25/75 & 25.93 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\mathrm{c}\mathrm{B}}\) & 65.44 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{B}}\) & 1.30 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{A}}\) & 2.84 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{A}}\) & 1.238 \(\pm\) 0.053 \({}^{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{A}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Values are given as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation. Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences (\(p\) < 0.05) when analyzed by the Duncan’s Test. Small letters indicate differences based on the films’ materials while capital letters show differences based on their proportions.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Optical properties of CH, CH/CNC and CH/CD final formed edible films. Results show that the addition of CNC or CD to the CH samples slightly degraded the mechanical properties of the composite films. This degradation, however, was not statistically significant. An exception was the sample with CH/CD (50/50) which presented similar or higher values in its mechanical properties compared to the control sample. This is attributed to the same ratio of the two components (CH and CD), which allows them to be more evenly distributed on the surface of the film and results in a structure that facilitates the uniform distribution of the entered stress across the film and reduces stress concentration areas [60]. Additionally, results indicated that the addition of CD had a significant influence (\(p<0.05\)) on the elastic modulus (Table 4). This is associated with the interactions between CH and CD and the final structure of the formed edible films. The comparison of the two materials in question shows that in some cases the CNC containing films presented higher mechanical strength than the CD containing films. This is probably due to the ability of nanocrystals to facilitate load transfer and stress distribution, thus increasing the stability of the edible films [61].