.jpeg)
Challenge
A medical device company was finalizing the design of a luer hub-to-tubing assembly for a Class II disposable device.
The hub was to be solvent bonded to a polymeric tube, but the team was torn between three candidate materials for the luer hub:
- Polycarbonate (PC)
- Rigid Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)
- Rigid Polyester
Each material offered unique mechanical and processing advantages, but the team lacked confidence in how these materials would perform in solvent bonding and under long-term clinical exposure. The risk of bond failure, stress cracking, or extractable migration made this a critical material selection decision.
Chemva’s Solution
Chemva led a material compatibility evaluation using HansenSolubility Parameters (HSP) to scientifically assess the interaction potentialbetween each candidate hub material, the bonding solvent, and the polyurethanetubing.
Our process included:
- HSP Analysisof Materials and Solvents:
- Calculatedand compared the HSP values (δD, δP, δH) of each candidate polymer against thePU tubing and typical solvent blends (e.g., cyclohexanone, tetrahydrofuran, andmethyl ethyl ketone).
- Evaluatedthe “solubility distance” between materials to predict compatibility or risk ofswelling/degradation.
- Performance& Risk Mapping:
- Polycarbonate(PC): Showed moderate compatibility with bonding solvents but a higher risk ofenvironmental stress cracking (ESC) when exposed to alcohols or disinfectantsin clinical settings.
- Rigid PVC:Strong bonding potential but raised concerns about lower long-term dimensionalstability.
- RigidPolyester: Demonstrated favorable HSP alignment with solvent and maintaineddimensional and chemical stability post-bonding.
- AdditionalScreening Considerations:
- Assessedbiocompatibility profiles, sterilization compatibility (EtO, gamma), andregulatory precedence for each material.
- Designedexperiments to evaluate a preliminary bond strength screening using benchtopsolvent-bonding trials and visual inspection for discoloration ormicrocracking.
Based on HSP compatibility, chemical resilience, and bonding performance,Chemva recommended polyester as the top choice, with rigid PVC(non-plasticized) as a secondary option. Polycarbonate was deprioritized due tohigher ESC risk in the intended use environment and sensitivity to solventinteractions.
Impact Delivered
Chemva’s evidence-based approach helped the client:
- Avoid downstream bonding failures or field returns due to material-solvent mismatch.
- Accelerate design freeze by providing confidence in material selection.
- Build a scientifically justified material rationale that could be used in regulatory submissions and technical files.

.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.png)


.jpeg)
.jpeg)

.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)


%20on%20Threads.jpeg)

.png)

.png)
%201%20(1).png)
