Table 1.

Comparison of several available materials for the fabrication of microfluidic platforms. Adapted from the literature references [2,25,26,27,28,29,44,45,47,48].

Feature	Metal	Silicon	Glass	Ceramics	Elastomers	Thermoplastics	Resins	Hydrogels	Paper	Hybrids/Composites
Low cost	Positive	Negative	Negative	Positive	Moderate	Positive	Positive	Positive	Positive	Positive
Ease of fabrication	Positive	Negative	Negative	Positive	Positive	Moderate	Positive	Moderate	Positive	Moderate
Good mechanical properties	Positive	Positive	Positive	Negative	Positive	Positive	Positive	Moderate	Negative	Positive
Ease of sterilization		Positive	Positive	Negative	Positive	Positive	Positive	Negative	Negative
Flexibility(Young’s modulus–GPa)	Negative (100–200)	Negative(130–180)	Negative(50–90)	Negative(65–250)	Positive (~0.0005)	Negative (1.4–4.1)	Negative (2.0–2.7)	Positive (low)	Positive (0.0003–0.0025)
Oxygen permeability (Barrer)		Negative (<0.01)	Negative (<0.01)	Positive(>1)	Positive (~500)	Variable (0.05–5)	Negative (0.03–1)	Positive (>1)	Positive (>1)	Variable
Biocompatibility		Positive	Positive	Moderate	Positive	Positive	Positive	Positive	Positive	Positive
Chemical modification possibility		Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Positive	Moderate	Moderate
Optical clarity	Negative	Negative	Positive	Negative	Slight autofluorescence	Positive	Positive	Positive	Negative	Positive
Smallest channel dimension		<1 µm	<1 µm	>1 µm	<1 µm	<100 nm	<1 µm	>1 µm	>1 µm
Low absorption		Positive	Positive	Positive	Positive	Positive	Positive	Moderate	Moderate
Rapid prototyping		Moderate	Negative	Negative	Negative	Positive	Negative	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate
Tunable fluorescence	Negative	Negative	Negative	Negative	Positive	Negative	Negative	Moderate	Negative
Potential for cell ingrowth	Negative	Negative	Negative	Negative	Negative	Negative	Negative	Positive	Positive	Negative