% (D) of MWCNTs. The real and imaginary parts of the measured complex permittivity for pristine Epilox resin and NC with 1 and 3 wt.% of MWCNTs

are reported in Figure 3. As expected, the increasing of filler concentration increases the value of both real and imaginary parts. Figure 3 Relative permittivity of studied NC. Left, real part. Right, imaginary part. Concerning the statistical analysis, the graph in Figure 4 (left) shows that there is no statistically significant difference between the Epilox resin and the NC (1 wt.% MWCNTs) in terms of real part of relative permittivity, (p > 0.05). However, the higher MWCNT concentration (3 wt.%) Selleck XAV 939 leads to a statistically significant difference in comparison to both the normal Epilox resin (without MWCNTs) and NC (with 1 wt.% MWCNTs) (p ≤ 0.01). The bar chart in Figure 4 (right) highlights how the

imaginary part of the permittivity increases by increasing the concentration. The difference between the pristine epoxy resin and the NC (1 wt.% MWCNTs) proves that a small concentration of MWCNTs was not sufficient to produce a significant variation in the imaginary part of the permittivity (p > 0.05). On the other hand, incorporating more, such as 3 wt.% of MWCNTs, inside the epoxy resin, significantly improves the imaginary part of the permittivity that is strictly related to NC conductivity (p ≤ 0.001). Lastly, it was revealed that a concentration of 3 wt.% of MWCNTs is able to significantly increase both the imaginary and the only real parts of the permittivity

Kinase Inhibitor Library mw (p ≤ 0.001). Details of the results are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Urease In the second CP-690550 cost column, the mean difference of the comparison between the pairs under examination is shown, while in the third column, the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the mean difference is given. Figure 4 Statistical analysis. **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001. Error bars represent the standard deviation of measurements performed. Table 1 Multiple comparison summary – relative permittivity – real part Tukey’s multiple comparison tests Mean diff 95% CI of diff Adjusted p value Significant? Summary 1 wt.% vs. 3 wt.% -2.186 -2.865 to -1.507 0.0031 Yes ** 1 wt.% vs. Epilox 0.5255 -0.09689 to 1.148 0.1233 No ns 3 wt.% vs. Epilox 2.712 1.870 to 3.553 0.0027 Yes ** **p ≤ 0.01, ns, not significant; diff, difference. Table 2 Multiple comparison summary – relative permittivity – imaginary part Tukey’s multiple comparison tests Mean diff 95% CI of diff Adjusted p value Significant? Summary 1 wt.% vs. 3 wt.% -0.5777 -0.6655 to 0.4899 0.0002 Yes *** 1 wt.% vs. Epilox 0.1014 -0.0446 to 0.2474 0.1265 No ns 3 wt.% vs. Epilox 0.6792 0.5381 to 0.8202 0.0006 Yes *** ***p ≤ 0.001; ns, not significant; diff, difference. Conclusions Nanocomposites based on epoxy resin and MWCNTs in two different concentrations were made. FESEM analysis showed a discrete dispersion of MWCNTs inside material.