“…It has been reported that 50% of deaths in the army are due to improper or inadequate treatment . Unfortunately, traditional methods of hemostasis, such as suture and compression with gauze, are suitable for minor injuries and cannot be used to treat major bleeding, especially for cardiovascular, hepatic, gastrointestinal, and orthopedic treatments. , They may lead to hemorrhagic shock or death once performed undeservedly. , Nowadays, a wide variety of biological sources and polysaccharide-based materials have been investigated as topical hemostatic agents, such as chitosan, cellulose, gelatin, and so on (Surgicel, Celox, HemConBandage). − Besides, polyethylene glycol and catechol monomers with antibacterial and adhesive properties are also effective hemostatic materials (Wound stat, Combat Gauze). − In addition, some inorganic materials, such as silica or silica–aluminate and mineral zeolite are also used as hemostatic materials due to unique structure (Coseal). − However, the applications of hemostatic agents are limited by biological safety, hemostatic effect, and high cost. For example, synthetic derived materials mainly have potential problems such as cytotoxicity and nonbiodegradability; , biologically derived hemostatic agents are expensive, have a short shelf life and a potential risk of viral contamination; and inorganic materials often cause thermal damage and inflammation in clinical application. , Additionally, another key challenge that has been overlooked is the vulnerability of wounds to infection during hemostasis.…”