## 3 Results and Discussion
### EMI SE Statistical Analysis
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Source** & **DF** & **Sum of Squares** & **Mean Square** & **F-Value** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline B & 1 & 0.13300 & 0.132998 & 0.43 & 0.528 \\ \hline C & 1 & 0.55625 & 0.556249 & 1.79 & 0.211 \\ \hline Square & 3 & 0.63682 & 0.212273 & 0.68 & 0.583 \\ \hline A * A & 1 & 0.18753 & 0.187532 & 0.60 & 0.456 \\ \hline B * B & 1 & 0.06003 & 0.060032 & 0.19 & 0.670 \\ \hline C * C & 1 & 0.55718 & 0.557175 & 1.79 & 0.211 \\ \hline
2-Way Interaction & 3 & 0.62500 & 0.208333 & 0.67 & 0.590 \\ \hline A * B & 1 & 0.12500 & 0.125000 & 0.40 & 0.541 \\ \hline A * C & 1 & 0.00000 & 0.000000 & 0.00 & 1.000 \\ \hline B * C & 1 & 0.50000 & 0.500000 & 1.60 & 0.234 \\ \hline Error & 10 & 3.11568 & 0.311568 & & \\ \hline Lack-of-Fit & 5 & 3.11568 & 0.623136 & * & * \\ \hline Pure Error & 5 & 0.00000 & 0.000000 & & \\ \hline Total & 19 & 5.29000 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: _Cont._  
Figure 6: Contour plots displaying the impact of (**a**) GNP and ZrO\({}_{2}\) on EMI effect, (**b**) GNP and BC on EMI effect, (**c**) BC and ZrO\({}_{2}\) on EMI effect. A scatter plot (Figure 7) is a graphic or mathematical diagram that uses Cartesian coordinates to display values for two variables for data collection. Figure 7 indicates the contrast between the real value on the X-axis and projected EMI values on the Y-axis. As seen in Figure 7, there is a linear connection between the expected and real values of EMI. This underpins the significance of the regression equation derived from the analysis of variance in determining the best range of various particles to utilize for reinforcement to get the highest EMI. Table 9 and Figure 8 represent the optimal weight percent of GNP, ZrO\({}_{2}\), and BC for the best EMI value through the RSM optimization study. It shows that the combination of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Specimen** & **Real Value of EMI (dB)** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Statistical Value** \\ **of EMI (dB)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Residual** & **Error\%** \\ \hline A1 & 24.3 & 24.1 & 0.2 & 0.69 \\ \hline A2 & 24.5 & 24.6 & \(-\)0.1 & \(-\)0.56 \\ \hline A3 & 24.2 & 23.7 & 0.5 & 1.88 \\ \hline A4 & 23.3 & 23.2 & 0.1 & 0.27 \\ \hline A5 & 23.1 & 23.9 & \(-\)0.8 & \(-\)3.73 \\ \hline A6 & 23.8 & 24.0 & \(-\)0.2 & \(-\)1.12 \\ \hline A7 & 23.5 & 24.0 & \(-\)0.5 & \(-\)2.44 \\ \hline A8 & 23.5 & 23.9 & \(-\)0.4 & \(-\)2.00 \\ \hline A9 & 24.1 & 23.7 & 0.4 & 1.32 \\ \hline A10 & 24.5 & 24.2 & 0.3 & 0.83 \\ \hline A11 & 23.4 & 23.8 & \(-\)0.4 & \(-\)1.74 \\ \hline A12 & 24.9 & 23.9 & 1.0 & 3.72 \\ \hline A13 & 25.2 & 24.6 & 0.6 & 2.04 \\ \hline A14 & 23.9 & 23.8 & 0.1 & 0.02 \\ \hline A15 & 23.8 & 23.6 & 0.2 & 0.44 \\ \hline A16 & 23.8 & 23.6 & 0.2 & 0.44 \\ \hline A17 & 23.8 & 23.6 & 0.2 & 0.44 \\ \hline A18 & 23.8 & 23.6 & 0.2 & 0.44 \\ \hline A19 & 23.8 & 23.6 & 0.2 & 0.44 \\ \hline A20 & 23.8 & 23.6 & 0.2 & 0.44 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: EMI error estimation between real and statistically anticipated values. Figure 7: Actual vs. Predicted Electromagnetic Interference value. 0.1 weight percent GNP, 0.5 weight percent ZrO2, and 2.5 weight percent BC provides the highest EMI SE data, i.e., 28.61 dB, with a desirability value of 1. Table 10 compares EMI SE with different materials, dominant mechanisms, frequency range, and thickness. As shown in Table 10, this work presents a relatively lightweight polyurethane foam that can improve EMI SE by adding nanoparticles.