“…[ 2 ] Despite of excellent properties of WPU including high hardness, nontoxicity, and superior processability, [ 4 ] the low mechanical and thermal properties, weak mechanical strength, poor adhesion strength, and solvent resistance could step down their real practical applications. [ 5 ] Therefore, the various types of nanofillers including 1) carbon‐based nanomaterials such as graphene, carbon nanotubes/multiwall carbon nanotubes (CNTs/MWCNTs), [2d,6] (metal–organic frameworks [MOFs]), [ 7 ] and carbon black; [ 8 ] 2) carbides/nitrides (MXenes) base nanomaterials including Ti 3 C 2 T x /S‐CNTs, [ 9 ] Ti 3 C 2 T x /CNTs, [ 10 ] and BP‐Ti 3 C 2 ; [ 11 ] 3) oxide‐based nanomaterials such as CaCO 3 , [ 12 ] Al 2 O 3 , [ 13 ] SnO 2 , [ 14 ] SiO 2 , [ 15 ] Fe 3 O 4 , [ 16 ] magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs), [ 17 ] alpha ZrP, [ 18 ] and GOSI; [ 19 ] 4) superparamagnetic‐based nanomaterials such as Ni–Zn ferrite; [ 20 ] and 5) other castor oil, [5b] Ce‐MMT, [ 21 ] PEDOT:PSS, [ 22 ] and EMIM:DCA [2e] have been reported with WPU matrix to address the pristine WPU limitations. Though the various conventional synthesis methods, including solvothermal, hydrothermal, and so on, are reported for the synthesis of different fillers and WPU‐based nanocomposites, their harsh reaction condition and scarcity could step down their usability and practical applications which could not meet the industrial requirements.…”