Physical fragility was observed in all the samples. However, increasing the amount of CNT slightly reduced the fragility. This observation can be explained by a good interaction between CNT and polymer matrix [13]. Additionally, we could explain this phenomenon according to [14].
According to its ratio, it has been observed that PMMA becomes more visible in the polymer blend in the SEM images (shown in Fig. 1a, b, c). It can be thought that dipole-dipole interactions occurring in the neighbor chains via Cl-Cl bounding were fettered by the present PMMA molecules, as supported by [15]. Other images showed that CNTs dispersed well enough and interacted well with the polymer matrix.
The amorphous character of the nanocomposite was exposed by the XRD analysis (shown in Fig. 5). This observation is compatible with [16] and [17]. Crystallinity decreased with 0.1 and 0.5% of CNT; however, it was observed that crystallinity increased again with 1% of CNT (shown in Table 1). Because CNTs in this study were not functionalized with any chemical group like -COOH or -OH, this situation between CNTs and polymer matrix without any chemical binding can be explained with electrostatic interaction and Van der Waals forces or micromechanical locking up [18]. A similar effect of nanomaterial in crystallinity was observed by Althobiti et al. [19]. In a similar study, the researchers prepared a PVC/PMMA/TiO2 nanocomposite and found that the dopant reduced the crystallinity of the samples [20].
A curve with three weight loss stages in TGA occurred (shown in Fig. 6, Table 2). The first loss was terminated at 194°C. The second level of degradation can be explained with a dehydrochlorination that looks very similar to [21]. In our study, the second degradation level started atre about 220°C and reached a maximum temperature of approximately 470°C. These results look remarkably similar to those of other studies on polymer blends, including the chlorinate group such as PVC [22].
Despite the fragility of the nanocomposite, there is only one Tg value and endothermic curve (shown in Fig. 7, Table 3). This is compatible with the criteria of miscibility presented in [23]. However, there is no correlation between Tg values and CNT amounts.
DTG results showed that CNT doping reduced the rate of weight loss (shown in Fig. 8, Table 4). In this situation, it can be supposed that there is a good interaction between CNTs and polymer blend. Due to good interaction, CNTs can help preserve the integrity of nanocomposites. The curves and values of the nanocomposite with CNT confirm this supposition. These data were compatible and explicable with [9] and [24].
Electrical conductivity reached 1.2 × 10− 7 S/cm with only 1% of CNT. Till this amount, any increase was not measured in the electrical conductivity. In this situation, according to Sah and Gupta [25], it can be thought that solvent-polymer interaction could make the percolation weaken. In a study with various polymer/MWCNT nanocomposites, Zare et al. [26] found the biggest Lc ( Interfacial conductivity) in the PVC/MWCNT nanocomposite. Our study found a conductivity curve highly similar to their findings. This showed that at the near concentration of CNTs, conductivity and percolation in polymer nanocomposite can be affected by the concentration of the polymeric dispersion phase. According to the results of this study, it can be said that the PVC/PMMA polymer blend has > 50 PMMA and cannot make any positive contribution to physical strength and electrical conductivity.