## 4 Conclusions  
This study demonstrated the feasibility of utilizing the electrical conductivity of CNTs through in situ polymerization via both addition and condensation mechanisms. To further validate this approach, MWNT/PS and MWNT/PETE materials with varying MWNT contents were characterized in terms of surface morphology, thermal behavior, and surface resistivity. Through FE-SEM observations, it was confirmed that the MWNTs were uniformly dispersed within the in situ polymer materials, forming a homogeneous structure that was distinctly different from the surface morphology of the pure PS and PETE samples. An enhancement in thermal stability was also observed as the MWNT content increased. According to DSC measurements, the T\({}_{\text{g}}\) of the PS rose from 82 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 86 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 91 \({}^{\circ}\)C with MWNT addition, while the PETE showed an increase from 83 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 84 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 90 \({}^{\circ}\)C. These results confirm that the incorporation of MWNTs positively influences the thermal stability of the polymers. Regarding electrical conductivity, surface resistivity measurements revealed that increasing the MWNT content led to a gradual decrease in resistivity, confirming that the electrical conductivity of the materials improved with a higher MWNT concentration. PETE is a polar polymer that contains a relatively high proportion of ester groups and benzene rings in a planar chemical structure, which allows for stronger \(\pi\)-\(\pi\) interactions and electrostatic interactions with MWNTs compared to PS. These interactions are believed to provide a relatively strong interfacial property to the surface of MWNTs, thereby enabling the formation of more stable charge transport pathways [23, 25]. This interfacial bonding can also be observed in the TEM images, and it may be indirectly supported by the higher thermal T\({}_{\text{d}}\) values of the PETE compared to the PS, as indicated by the TGA data. These differences suggest that PETE provides a more thermally and physically favorable environment for the uniform dispersion of MWNTs,  
Figure 5: Surface resistivity of different MWNT/PS and MWNT/PETE materials. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & **Sample** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Surface Resistivity**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Sample**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Surface Resistivity**} \\  & & **(Ohm/sq)** & & & **(Ohm/sq)** \\ \hline
1 & MWNT only & 8.12 \(\times\) 10\({}^{2}\) & 1 & MWNT only & 8.12 \(\times\) 10\({}^{2}\) \\
2 & PS only & \textgreater{}10\({}^{13}\) & 2 & PETE only & \textgreater{}10\({}^{13}\) \\
3 & (1.0 wt\%) MWNT + PS & 8.8 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) & 3 & (1.0 wt\%) MWNT + PETE & 5.9 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) \\
4 & (1.2 wt\%) MWNT + PS & 7.6 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) & 4 & (1.2 wt\%) MWNT + PETE & 4.3 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) \\
5 & (1.4 wt\%) MWNT + PS & 6.9 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) & 5 & (1.4 wt\%) MWNT + PETE & 2.7 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) \\
6 & (1.6 wt\%) MWNT + PS & 6.1 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) & 6 & (1.6 wt\%) MWNT + PETE & 1.3 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) \\
7 & (1.8 wt\%) MWNT + PS & 5.2 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) & 7 & (1.8 wt\%) MWNT + PETE & 0.7 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) \\
8 & (2.0 wt\%) MWNT + PS & 3.7 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) & 8 & (2.0 wt\%) MWNT + PETE & 0.2 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Surface resistivity of different MWNT/PS, MWNT/PETE materials. which may account for the lower surface resistivity and higher electrical conductivity observed in MWNT/PETE compared to in MWNT/PS. Furthermore, the measured surface resistivity values were below the typical antistatic threshold of \(10^{5}\) Ohm/sq, demonstrating that the materials possess superior antistatic performance. Based on the results of this study, it is anticipated that conductive polymers containing carbon nanotubes can be further extended not only to radical polymer systems but also to various condensation-based polymers.