## 3 Results and Discussion
### Thermal Properties of Green Composites
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Film** & **T\({}_{\rm g}\) (\({}^{\circ}\)C)** & **T\({}_{\rm c}\) (\({}^{\circ}\)C)** & **\(\Delta\)H\({}_{\rm c}\) (\({}^{\circ}\)J/g)** & **T\({}_{\rm m}\) (\({}^{\circ}\)C)** & **\(\Delta\)H\({}_{\rm m}\) (\({}^{\circ}\)/g)** & **\(\chi_{\rm c}\) (\%)** \\ \hline PHBV & \(-1.73\pm 0.11\)\({}^{\rm a}\) & 78.65 \(\pm\) 0.36\({}^{\rm a}\) & 79.07 \(\pm\) 0.70 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 170.53 \(\pm\) 0.16\({}^{\rm a}\) & 95.81 \(\pm\) 8.64\({}^{\rm a}\) & 65.35 \(\pm\) 1.89\({}^{\rm a}\) \\ PHBV\_2.5\%\%\(\rm MFC\) & \(-1.62\pm 0.07\)\({}^{\rm a}\) & 82.26 \(\pm\) 0.57 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 78.63 \(\pm\) 0.64\({}^{\rm a}\) & 167.80 \(\pm\) 0.11\({}^{\rm b}\) & 91.61 \(\pm\) 8.42\({}^{\rm b}\) & 65.78 \(\pm\) 6.04\({}^{\rm a}\) \\ PHBV\_5\%\(\rm MFC\) & \(-1.73\pm 0.04\)\({}^{\rm a}\) & 76.40 \(\pm\) 0.66\({}^{\rm c}\) & 71.17 \(\pm\) 0.23\({}^{\rm b}\) & 168.81 \(\pm\) 0.04\({}^{\rm b}\) & 95.09 \(\pm\) 1.22\({}^{\rm a}\) & 68.28 \(\pm\) 0.87\({}^{\rm b}\) \\ PHBV\_USAPC & \(-1.71\pm 0.21\)\({}^{\rm a}\) & 75.59 \(\pm\) 0.56\({}^{\rm c}\) & 63.59 \(\pm\) 0.71\({}^{\rm c}\) & 169.06 \(\pm\) 0.79\({}^{\rm b}\) & 84.45 \(\pm\) 1.60\({}^{\rm c}\) & 64.01 \(\pm\) 1.21\({}^{\rm c}\) \\ PHBV\_USAPC & \(-1.72\pm 0.06\)\({}^{\rm a}\) & 73.07 \(\pm\) 0.54 \({}^{\rm d}\) & 73.18 \(\pm\) 0.73\({}^{\rm b}\) & 168.16 \(\pm\) 0.49\({}^{\rm b}\) & 91.92 \(\pm\) 0.24\({}^{\rm b}\) & 63.34 \(\pm\) 0.16\({}^{\rm c}\) \\ PHBV\_VICTIC+DCP & \(-1.73\pm 0.14\)\({}^{\rm a}\) & 77.07 \(\pm\) 42\({}^{\rm d}\) & 75.79 \(\pm\) 0.19\({}^{\rm d}\) & 166.31 \(\pm\) 0.25\({}^{\rm c}\) & 90.95 \(\pm\) 2.18\({}^{\rm b}\) & 62.85 \(\pm\) 1.51\({}^{\rm d}\) \\ PHBV\_5\%\(\rm MFC\_\)ESAO & \(-1.77\pm 0.07\)\({}^{\rm a}\) & 76.90 \(\pm\) 1.66\({}^{\rm c}\) & 78.87 \(\pm\) 1.40\({}^{\rm a}\) & 167.40 \(\pm\) 0.56\({}^{\rm c}\) & 93.66 \(\pm\) 0.13\({}^{\rm d}\) & 67.25 \(\pm\) 0.10\({}^{\rm b}\) \\ PHBV\_5\%\(\rm MFC\_\)TGIC+DCP & \(-1.76\pm 0.30\)\({}^{\rm a}\) & 79.93 \(\pm\) 0.85\({}^{\rm e}\) & 68.49 \(\pm\) 0.34\({}^{\rm e}\) & 165.76 \(\pm\) 0.45\({}^{\rm d}\) & 89.59 \(\pm\) 1.23\({}^{\rm b}\) & 65.15 \(\pm\) 0.89\({}^{\rm c}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
T\({}_{\rm g}\) = glass transition temperature; T\({}_{\rm c}\) = crystallization temperature; \(\Delta\)H\({}_{\rm c}\) = enthalpy of crystallization, T\({}_{\rm m}\) = melting temperature, \(\Delta\)H\({}_{\rm m}\) = enthalpy of fusion; \(\chi_{\rm c}\) = percent crystallinity. Mean values and standard deviation.  
* \({}^{\rm e}\) Different superscripts in the same column indicate significant differences between formulations (\(p<0.05\)).
\end{table} 
Table 3: Thermal properties obtained by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) of the films of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) (PHBV) with microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) and compatibilized with epoxy-based styrene-acrylic oligomer (ESAO) and with triglyceridel isocyanate (TGIC) and dicumyl peroxide (DCP). slightly increased crystallinity due to their above-described nucleating agent, reaching values of up to ~68%. In the case of compatibilizers, the aforementioned increase in the molecular PHBV chains could slightly reduce the crystallinity, showing values in the range of 62-64%. Figure 8: Field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM) images of the films of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-_co_-3-hydroxyvalerate_) (PHBV) with microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) and compatibilized with epoxy-based styrene-acrylic oligomer (ESAO) and with triglycerides1 isocyanate (TGIC) and dicumyl peroxide (DCP) as follows: (**a**) PHBV; (**b**) PHBV_2.5%MFC; (**c**) PHBV_5%MFC; (**d**) PHBV_10%MFC; (**e**) PHBV_ESAO; (**f**) PHBV_TGIC+DCP; (**g**) PHBV_5%MFC_ESAO; (**h**) PHBV_5%MFC_TGIC+DCP. Arrows and circles show the morphologies described in the text.