## 3 Results and Discussion
### Effect of CNT Types and CNT Concentrations on Suspension Polymerization of Styrene and nBA
From Table 7, it is clear that the conversion of polymerized particles did not rise above 78% for nonmodified CNTs, which indicates that the carbonyl group still has retarding/inhibiting effects on suspension polymerization, which is in line with the existing literature [26]. The carbonyl group's inhibition/retardation of the suspension polymerization stems from its interaction with free radicals generated during the polymerization process [30]. The carbonyl group acts like a trap, capturing free radicals and preventing them from interacting with additional monomer molecules, which slows down the overall polymerization rate, thus explaining the conversion rate failing to exceed 78%. In addition, by forming stable cross-linked polymer networks, carbonyl groups can impact suspension polymerization. This process forms an insoluble polymer, reducing the polymer conversion efficiency [31; 32]. Furthermore, these insoluble networks trap monomers and prevent them from reacting, leading to slower conversion rates and lower polymer conversion efficiency, as shown in Table 7. [PERSON] et al. [33] found that increasing the carbonyl-functionalized comonomer in a polymerization mixture led to a decrease in the polymer yield because of the formation of insoluble networks. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. [34] found that carbonyl groups in a polyvinyl alcohol stabilizer used in the suspension polymerization of styrene resulted in the formation of an insoluble network, which decreased conversion efficiency, leading to lower polymer yields. Table 7 also presents CNTs modified with NH\({}_{2}\) and boron. Retarding/inhibiting effects remained for CNTs modified with NH\({}_{2}\), even though most of the carbonyl groups were \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Samples**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**CNT**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**DLS Measurements**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Conversions**} \\ \cline{3-4}  & & & **Z-Average** & & **PDI** \\ \hline SP-CNT-A & 0.065 & 228 & 0.3 & 76\% \\ SP-CNT-A & 0.125 & 1792 & 1.0 & 73\% \\ SP-CNT-A & 0.250 & 6621 & 0.4 & 70\% \\ SP-CNT-A & 0.500 & 625 & 0.6 & 9\% \\ SP-CNT-A & 0.750 & 1929 & 1.00 & 13\% \\ SP-CNT-A & 0.100 & 5749 & 0.84 & 10\% \\ \hline SP-CNT-B & 0.065 & 1955 & 1.00 & 78\% \\ SP-CNT-B & 0.125 & 2557 & 1.00 & 72\% \\ SP-CNT-B & 0.250 & 1779 & 1.00 & 59\% \\ SP-CNT-B & 0.500 & 172 & 0.11 & 47\% \\ SP-CNT-B & 0.750 & 279 & 0.265 & 59\% \\ SP-CNT-B & 0.100 & 372 & 0.303 & 33\% \\ \hline SP-CNT-C & 0.065 & 5216 & 0.176 & 75\% \\ SP-CNT-C & 0.125 & 782 & 0.617 & 73\% \\ SP-CNT-C & 0.250 & 151 & 0.255 & 75\% \\ SP-CNT-C & 0.500 & 195 & 0.159 & 58\% \\ SP-CNT-C & 0.750 & 1608 & 0.152 & 64\% \\ SP-CNT-C & 1.00 & 268 & 0.351 & 59\% \\ \hline SP-CNT-D & 0.065 & 4259 & 1.00 & 96\% \\ SP-CNT-D & 0.125 & 4031 & 1.00 & 94\% \\ SP-CNT-D & 0.250 & 6621 & 0.4 & 90\% \\ SP-CNT-D & 0.500 & 5715 & 0.35 & 96\% \\ SP-CNT-D & 0.750 & 1929 & 1.00 & 93\% \\ SP-CNT-D & 1.00 & 5890 & 0.367 & 90\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: The effects of CNT-A, CNT-B, CNT-C, and CNT-D concentrations on suspension polymerization of St and nBA. replaced by NH\({}_{2}\) (it was not possible to replace all of them). Despite the findings presented in Table 7, further research is required to comprehensively understand the underlying mechanisms responsible for the observed effects and to offer a sound explanation. Several contributing factors could be at play, including the particular structure of the modified CNTs, how they interact with the monomers, and the overall kinetics of the polymerization process, and it is essential to consider all these variables. According to [PERSON] et al. [35], CNTs modified with amino groups have greater compatibility with polar polymers because of the presence of hydrogen bonding, while CNTs modified with boron have improved electrical properties because of the introduction of a p-type doping effect.