Fig. 4: In vivo clotting research.
From: Robust hemostatic bandages based on nanoclay electrospun membranes
a Bleeding time of wounds treated with NEMs. In rat liver hemostasis model: PVPEM (n = 7), HEM1.5 (n = 5), PEM1.5 (n = 3), KEM1.5 (n = 5), KEM2.0 (n = 4), KEM2.4 (n = 3), ClG (n = 5) and CoG (n = 5); in rat spleen hemostasis model: PVPEM (n = 5), HEM1.5 (n = 4), PEM1.5 (n = 4), KEM1.5 (n = 3), KEM2.0 (n = 4), KEM2.4 (n = 4), ClG (n = 5) and CoG (n = 6); and in rat-tail amputation hemostasis model: PVPEM (n = 3), HEM1.5 (n = 3), PEM1.5 (n = 3), KEM1.5 (n = 3), KEM2.0 (n = 3), KEM2.4 (n = 3), ClG (n = 4) and CoG (n = 3). b Photographs for the bleeding wound with untreated, treated and removed PVPEM, HEM1.5, PEM1.5, KEM1.5, KEM2.0, KEM2.4, ClG and CoG, respectively, in rat liver and spleen hemostasis model. c Abdominal cavity lavage fluid photographs and the corresponding relative OD values after NEMs treatment. In rat liver hemostasis model: PVPEM (n = 6), HEM1.5 (n = 5), PEM1.5 (n = 3), KEM1.5 (n = 5), KEM2.0 (n = 4), KEM2.4 (n = 3), ClG (n = 5) and CoG (n = 5); and in rat spleen hemostasis model: PVPEM (n = 5), HEM1.5 (n = 4), PEM1.5 (n = 4), KEM1.5 (n = 3), KEM2.0 (n = 4), KEM2.4 (n = 4), ClG (n = 5) and CoG (n = 5). Data were expressed as mean ± s.d.; \(^{\ast\ast\ast\ast}\), p < 0.0001. Student’s t test (two-sided) was used for statistical analysis of between two groups comparison in (a) and (c). All experiments were replicated at least three times independently with similar results. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.
