## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Effect of Nanobubbling for Wood Meal  
Despite no significant differences in the CHN ratio before and after ozone nanobubble treatment, as shown in Table 3, a slight decrease in the holocellulose content was observed. In this point, ozone nanobubbles may have selectively affected cellulose or hemicellulose. Additionally, the proportion of Soxhet-extractable components tended to decrease after the ozone nanobubble treatment, indicating that some low-molecular-weight extractives were removed during the process.  
To further analyze the composition in detail, holocellulose was fractionated into \(\alpha\)-cellulose and hemicellulose to examine whether ozone nanobubble treatment selectively affected specific components. The results are presented in Table 4.  
This analysis revealed a clear reduction in hemicellulose content in the samples treated with ozone nanobubbles, suggesting that the treatment may promote hemicellulose degradation. The lignin content seemed stable. Additionally, because ozone nanobubbles have been reported to affect the amorphous regions of cellulose, X-Ray diffraction (XRD) analysis was conducted. The results of this evaluation and the calculation results of the crystallinity are shown in Figure 4 and Table 5, respectively.  
The crystallinity and amorphous content calculations indicated a reduction in the amorphous fractions in all ozone nanobubble-treated samples. This finding is consistent with the report by [PERSON] et al. [42], confirming that ozone nanobubbles exhibit effects similar to those of ozone gas. Although the number of tested samples was limited to one, a pronounced decrease in the amorphous fraction was observed in the sample subjected to ultrasonic treatment after ozone nanobubble processing (with a relative increase in the  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Wood Meal** & **Klason Ligninin (\%)** & \(\alpha\)**-Cellulose (\%)** & **Hemicellulose (\%)** \\ \hline Untreated & 23.8 & 57.1 & 42.8 \\ \hline Nanobubble @RT & 23.8 & 64.1 & 35.9 \\ \hline Nanobubble @50 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 23.8 & 65.1 & 34.9 \\ \hline +Ultrasonic @RT & 20.7 & 61.5 & 38.4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Results of the Klason lignin and Wise methods.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Wood Meal** & **C (\%)** & **H (\%)** & **N (\%)** & **Extractive (\%)** & **Holocellulose (\%)** \\ \hline Untreated & 46.6 (0.1) & 5.7 (0.1) & 0.1 (0.1) & 6.4 & 77.4 \\ \hline Nanobubble @RT & 46.1 (1.4) & 5.6 (0.2) & 0.1 (0.1) & 4.6 & 70.9 \\ \hline Nanobubble @50 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 45.1 (1.4) & 5.5 (0.3) & 0.2 (0.1) & 4.7 & 69.7 \\ \hline +Ultrasonic @RT & 44.8 (0.4) & 5.7 (0.1) & 0.1 (0.1) & 2.0 & 72.3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} ( ) shows the standard deviation.  
\end{table}
Table 3: Componential analysis of three different offcut woods.  
crystalline fraction). The condition to elevate temperature seemed less effective at this point. On the other hand, this result suggests that post-treatment with ultrasound may enhance the effects of nanobubble processing. Alternatively, the simultaneous application of nanobubble treatment and ultrasonic processing may further amplify the observed effects. From this point, nanobubble treatment could affect the specific components of the wood meal, such as its hemicellulose and amorphous cellulose.