In general, the use of electron microscopy is a good idea to obtain a general size for your particles. The problem with SEM and TEM is that the counting statistics are problematic, as the sampling size is small. Regardless, this can give you an idea of the particle size.
Another technique that can be possibly useful is XRD. Rietveld refinements can give the crystallite size of the sample. The caveat here is crystallite size and particle size are not totally synonymous; the requirement is that the particles are single crystalline.
Finally, depending on the size and the sensitivity of instrument, you can use particle size analysis techniques like light/laser or X-ray scattering.
Ravi SHANKAR Rai Are you trying to calculate or measure? Are the structures dispersed in a liquid, or dry powder? If they are in liquids, what concentration?
There are differing particle size analyses systems. Some work off of light defraction. Some work off of static images, and some work off of high speed imaging of falling particles in liquid or in air. The above order also resembles their “real world“ accuracy with the last example being the most accurate. All of these methods are very reproducible within them selves, but their results will very between the chosen analysis type. They all very in their ability to tell you something of particle shape. And shape can be of equal importance to size (in example: long rods vs. spheres, vs flakes). If a general idea of size only is desired, static imaging compiled with particle size software, or image analysis software that has phase recognition capabilities. Or, even imaging with hand measurements. I have used all of the above methods. And all can work, depending upon your specific needs, and what you need to know about the particles.