## 3 Results and Discussion
### Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) Analysis  
The TEM images of the MCC and CNCs samples are displayed in Figure 7 below. It is evident that processing methods and hydrolysis conditions significantly affect the nano-dimensions of cellulose's structure. It was also found that the MCC sample was spherical, with particles averaging 110 \(\pm\) 30.81 nm in size. According to published findings by [PERSON] et al. [3], who recorded the influence of acid concentration on the form of the particle after hydrolysis, the particle size of the MCC sample reduced, and its shape altered significantly following the acid hydrolysis process. The post-hydrolysis CNCs sample also displayed a network-like structure, this time encompassing a rod-like particle that measured 9.36 \(\pm\) 3.81 nm in size. Self-assembly of the short cellulose rods via interfacial hydrogen bonding led to the formation of rod-shaped nano-cellulose [40]. That is because the cellulose's natural chemical structure has been maintained.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Samples**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Peak** \\ **Position,** \\ **2\(\theta\) (*)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **\(\theta\) (*)** \\ **\end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **\(Cos\) \(\theta\)** \\ **Intensity (FWHM)** \\ **(*)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Peak Width at Half** \\ **Maximum** \\ **Intensity (FWHM)** \\ **(Radian)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **\(Sin\) \(\theta\)** \\ **Intensity (FWHM)** \\ **(Radian)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **\(4 Sin\) \(\theta\)** \\ **Intensity (FWHM)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **\(\beta\) \(Cos\) \(\theta\)** \\ **Intensity (FWHM)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Strain,** \(\epsilon=\frac{\beta\text{Cell}}{4}\) \\ **(Radian)** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{MCC} & 16.4 & 8.20 & 0.9898 & 0.33 & 0.005767 & 0.1426 & 0.5705 & 0.00571 & \(1.43\times 10^{-3}\) \\  & 22.7 & 11.35 & 0.9804 & 1.20 & 0.020933 & 0.1967 & 0.7868 & 0.02052 & \(5.13\times 10^{-3}\) \\  & 34.5 & 17.25 & 0.9550 & 0.49 & 0.008547 & 0.2965 & 1.1861 & 0.00816 & \(2.04\times 10^{-3}\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{CNCs} & 16.4 & 8.20 & 0.9898 & 0.60 & 0.010467 & 0.1426 & 0.5705 & 0.01036 & \(2.5\times 10^{-3}\) \\  & 22.7 & 11.35 & 0.9804 & 1.52 & 0.026516 & 0.1967 & 0.7868 & 0.02599 & \(6.4\times 10^{-3}\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & 34.5 & 17.25 & 0.9550 & 0.73 & 0.012734 & 0.2965 & 1.1861 & 0.01216 & \(3.04\times 10^{-3}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Calculated values of strain of MCC and CNCs according to the Sherrer method.  
Figure 7: TEM micrographs and size distribution of CNCs (**c**,**d**) with reference of standard MCC (**a**,**b**).  
The net repulsion of the negative surface charges was overcome by the strong H-bonding within the CNCs structure, leading to the development of self-assembled porosity networks [41]. Over irradiation of electron beams throughout TEM observation and the freeze-drying procedure may also account for the CNCs sample network-like structure [42].