Which Material for Your Microfluidic Chip?

Select your application, fine-tune your constraints, get a personalized recommendation. Compares PDMS, glass, silicon, PMMA, COC, PC, PS, and Flexdym™.

Microfluidic Chip Material Selector

MICROFLUIDICS

Which material for your microfluidic chip?

Pick your application, tweak the parameters, get your answer. Takes 30 seconds.

👇 Click your application to start

Unlock your full report

Complete ranking of 8 materials Head-to-head comparison Relevant publications

Why Material Selection Matters in Microfluidics

Choosing the wrong material for a microfluidic chip can mean molecule absorption that biases drug screening results, cleanroom bottlenecks that stall your timeline, or a prototype that cannot scale to production. Most researchers default to PDMS , but it absorbs up to 90% of hydrophobic compounds within 24 hours (Toepke & Beebe, 2006), requires cleanroom access for SU-8 molds, and cannot be injection-molded. Today, eight distinct materials are available, each with specific advantages and hard constraints. Our free selector above evaluates them all based on your exact requirements.

Microfluidic Chip Material Comparison Table

Here’s an overview of the 8 materials evaluated by our selector. Each material has distinct trade-offs, what matters most depends on your application.

Material	Biocompat.	Optics	Chem. resist.	Scalability	Ease of use	Pressure	Cost / chip	Cleanroom
PDMS	★★★★	★★★★	★★	★	★★★★	★★	€5–15	Yes (molds)
Flexdym™	★★★★★	★★★★	★★★	★★★★★	★★★★★	★★★★	< €3 → €0.20	No
Glass	★★★★	★★★★★	★★★★★	★	★★	★★★★★	€50–500+	Yes
Silicon	★★★	★	★★★★★	★	★	★★★★★	€100–1000+	Yes
PMMA	★★★	★★★★	★★	★★★★	★★★	★★★	€1–5	No
COC / COP	★★★★	★★★★★	★★★★	★★★★	★★★	★★★★	€2–10	No
Polycarbonate	★★★	★★★	★★	★★★★	★★★	★★★★	€2–8	No
Polystyrene	★★★★★	★★★	★	★★★★★	★★	★★	< €0.10	No

Ratings are relative within the microfluidic chip context. Cost per chip varies by volume and fabrication method. Flexdym™ cost ranges from < €3 (sheets, prototyping) to < €0.20 (injection molding / roll-to-roll embossing at volume).

Key Factors in Choosing a Microfluidic Chip Material

Molecule Absorption, The Silent Experiment Killer

For drug screening, quantitative assays, or any work with hydrophobic compounds, molecule absorption is a deal-breaker. PDMS absorbs 50–90% of small hydrophobic molecules within hours. Glass, COC, and Flexdym™ are the safest choices for absorption-critical applications. Flexdym™ shows near-zero fluorescence background after 24-hour rhodamine exposure (Lachaux et al., Lab on a Chip, 2017).

Cleanroom Access, Or Lack Thereof

If you don’t have cleanroom access, glass and silicon are eliminated outright. PDMS casting doesn’t require a cleanroom, but the SU-8 master molds do. Thermoplastics (PMMA, COC, PC) and Flexdym™ can be fabricated entirely on benchtop equipment, hot embossing, CNC milling, or laser ablation.

Chemical Compatibility, Hard Knockout

Organic solvents dissolve most polymers. If your application involves toluene, acetone, chloroform, or similar chemicals, your only viable options are glass and silicon. Acids, bases, and alcohols are tolerated by most materials. Fluorinated oils (for droplet microfluidics) are compatible with glass, COC, and Flexdym™.

Scaling from Prototype to Production

The “lab-to-fab” gap is the biggest bottleneck in microfluidics commercialization. Many teams prototype in PDMS, then face a costly redesign when transitioning to injection-moldable thermoplastics. Materials that bridge this gap, where the same formulation works at prototyping and mass-production scale, eliminate this redesign risk. Flexdym™ is available as sheets (prototyping), rolls (pilot production via roll-to-roll embossing), and pellets (injection molding).

Pressure and Temperature Limits

High-pressure applications (> 4 bar) eliminate PDMS (elastic deformation) and polystyrene (brittleness). Glass and silicon handle the highest pressures. For temperature, polystyrene (T_g ~80°C) and PMMA (T_g ~105°C) are unsuitable above 100°C. Glass and silicon handle temperatures well above 200°C.

Gas Permeability, A Double-Edged Sword

PDMS has the highest O₂ permeability (~600 Barrer), which is advantageous for cell culture but problematic for bubble formation and evaporation. Flexdym™ has moderate gas permeability (~7.9 Barrer) — roughly 100× higher than PS/PMMA but 40–70× lower than PDMS. Published studies confirm successful long-term cultures of neurons, endothelial cells, and iPSCs in Flexdym™ chips.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the main materials used for microfluidic chip fabrication?

The eight most common materials are: PDMS (polydimethylsiloxane), the most widely used elastomer in academic labs; Glass, offering superior chemical resistance and optical transparency; Silicon, for sub-micron resolution and sensor integration; PMMA (acrylic), a low-cost rigid thermoplastic; COC/COP (cyclic olefin copolymer), premium thermoplastic with excellent UV transparency and low autofluorescence; Polycarbonate, impact-resistant and autoclavable; Polystyrene, the gold standard for cell culture; and Flexdym™ (SEBS thermoplastic elastomer), a material designed specifically for microfluidics that combines elastomeric properties with thermoplastic scalability.

Why is PDMS problematic for drug screening?

PDMS absorbs hydrophobic small molecules at rates of 50–90% within 24 hours (Toepke & Beebe, 2006). This includes drugs, hormones, dyes, and fluorescent markers, leading to inaccurate concentration measurements and unreliable dose-response curves. Additionally, uncrosslinked PDMS oligomers leach into the culture media, potentially altering gene expression (Regehr et al., 2009). For drug screening, use low-absorption materials like glass, COC, or Flexdym™.

Can I fabricate microfluidic chips without a cleanroom?

Yes. Several materials allow cleanroom-free fabrication: PMMA (CNC milling, laser cutting), COC/COP (hot embossing), Flexdym™ (hot embossing in 1–2 min with Sublym, no plasma bonding needed), and PC (CNC machining). Glass and silicon require cleanroom facilities. PDMS casting itself doesn’t need a cleanroom, but the SU-8 master molds typically do.

What is the best material for organ-on-chip devices?

For organ-on-chip (OOC), the material must be biocompatible, optically transparent, non-absorptive, sufficiently gas-permeable, and ideally support reversible bonding for tissue harvesting. Flexdym™ is increasingly used in OOC research: ISO 10993 certified, low absorption, reversible bonding at room temperature (Moon et al., 2024), and stable hydrophilicity post-plasma for > 1 week. PDMS remains common but has absorption and leaching concerns for quantitative studies.

How much does a microfluidic chip cost per material?

Costs vary significantly: PDMS €5–15/chip (manual); Glass €50–500+; Silicon €100–1,000+; PMMA €1–5; COC/COP €2–10; PS < €0.10 at volume; Flexdym™ < €3 (sheets), < €0.80 (rolls), < €0.20 (injection molding / roll-to-roll embossing). For high-volume or point-of-care applications, thermoplastics and Flexdym™ offer the lowest unit cost.

Which material scales best from prototype to mass production?

The “lab-to-fab” gap is a major challenge. Materials supporting this transition include COC/COP and PMMA (injection molding), PS (injection molding), and Flexdym™, which uniquely offers the same material as sheets (prototyping), rolls (pilot via roll-to-roll embossing), and pellets (injection molding), eliminating the redesign cost of changing materials between stages.

What material should I use with organic solvents?

Organic solvents (acetone, toluene, chloroform, THF) dissolve or swell PDMS, Flexdym™, PMMA, PS, and PC. Your only viable options are glass and silicon. COC/COP has moderate solvent resistance (test with your specific solvent). For fluorinated oils (droplet microfluidics), most materials including Flexdym™ work well.

What is Flexdym™ and how does it compare to PDMS?

Flexdym™ is a styrene-ethylene/butylene-styrene (SEBS) thermoplastic elastomer designed specifically for microfluidics by Eden Tech. Versus PDMS: near-zero molecule absorption (vs 50–90%), no cleanroom needed, room-temperature reversible bonding without plasma, hydrophilic stability > 1 week post-plasma (vs hours for PDMS), same material from prototype to mass production (sheets → rolls → injection molding), ISO 10993 + USP Class VI certified. PDMS advantages: higher gas permeability (~600 vs ~7.9 Barrer) and much larger existing literature base.