## 3 Results and Discussion
### Nanomechanical Analysis  
Increase in reduced modulus and hardness can be seen in Figure 6a by approximately 27% and 18%, respectively, for PP-30G compared to PP-25G. This increase is caused by the presence of 5% extra glass fiber. When adding elastomer, we see a decrease for PP-25G-E of approximately 22% for modulus and 25% for hardness compared to PP-25G caused by an increase in surface elasticity. This behavior is confirmed by the force-displacement curves in Figure 6b, where PP-25G-E has the highest elastic recovery out of all the composites. The presence of fly ash in PP-25G-C leads to an increase in hardness of 16% for this composite compared to PP-25G. In a previous article written by [PERSON] et al. (2012), similar behavior was observed where the introduction of silico-aluminous industrial waste in recycled polypropylene led to an increase in reduced moduli and hardness for the composites with ash powder compared to neat PP. Other studies by [PERSON] et al. (2015), [PERSON] et al. (2016) and [PERSON] et al. (2016) also showed that the addition of fillers such as exfoliated graphite nanoplatelets or nano-magneas led to an increase in reduced moduli and hardness compared to neat polymer, while a study by [PERSON] et al. (2018) demonstrated increases in hardness and reduced moduli for the studied composites with the introduction of 5 wt.% layered silicate. Composite PP-25G-C-E showed the highest increase in nanomechanical properties with 18% for reduced modulus, 35% for hardness compared to PP-25G and 21% increase in hardness compared to PP-30G. These results indicate that PP-25G-C-E has high surface resistance and would be suited for exterior applications in industries such as the automotive industry. The measures of Young's modulus and reduced modulus, while related, are distinctive mechanical properties determined via different methods. Tensile or compressive tests \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Storage**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Loss Modulus, E\({}^{\prime\prime}\)**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Loss Factor**} \\ \cline{3-14}  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Modulus, E\({}^{\prime}\)**} & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-14}
**Sample** & **Temp** & **E** & **Temp** & \(\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{E}^{\prime\prime}\\ \text{{Peak1}}\end{array}\) & **Temp** & \(\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{E}^{\prime\prime}\\ \text{{Peak2}}\end{array}\) & **Temp** & \(\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{E}^{\prime\prime}\\ \text{{Peak3}}\end{array}\) & **Temp** & **Tan \& Delta** & **Temp** & **Tan Delta** & **Temp** & **Tan Delta** \\  & \({}^{\circ}\)C & **MPa** & \({}^{\circ}\)C & **MPa** & \({}^{\circ}\)C & **MPa** & \({}^{\circ}\)C & **MPa** & \({}^{\circ}\)C & **Tan \& \& Peak** & \({}^{\circ}\)C & **Tan \& Peak** & \({}^{\circ}\)**C & **Tan \& Peak** \\ \hline PP-25G & 25 & 3393 & - & - & 11.5 & 159 & 74.6 & 131.3 & - & - & 17.2 & 0.043 & 100.9 & 0.072 \\ PP-30G & 25 & 3775 & - & - & 13.4 & 175.4 & 78.1 & 149.3 & - & - & 18.4 & 0.043 & 98.0 & 0.071 \\ PP-25G-C & 25 & 3388 & - & - & 10.5 & 166.4 & 74.6 & 140.9 & - & - & 16.7 & 0.045 & 99.8 & 0.077 \\ PP-25G-E & 25 & 2739 & \(-\)53.5 & 159.1 & 13.2 & 131.9 & 74.1 & 114.9 & \(-\)52.6 & 0.040 & 17.6 & 0.044 & 93.6 & 0.078 \\ PP-25G-C-E & 25 & 2528 & \(-\)52.3 & 148.9 & 11.6 & 121.8 & 75.4 & 114.7 & \(-\)50.7 & 0.041 & 15.6 & 0.043 & 92.6 & 0.083 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Storage modulus, loss modulus and loss factor values for PP composites. Figure 6: Nanomechanical properties of PP-25G, PP-30G, PP-25G-E, PP-25G-C and PP-25G-C-E composites; (**a**) reduced moduli and hardness; (**b**) force vs. displacement curves. are utilized to find Young's modulus, whereas the reduced modulus is acquired through indentation or nanoindentation processes. Both metrics offer an understanding of the stiffness of a material, but discrepancies may occur among samples because of the differences in testing methods, load conditions, sample preparation, and inherent material characteristics.