Analytical laboratories rarely change carrier gas for a single reason. In most cases, the decision reflects a mix of analytical performance, supply security, operating costs, and, increasingly, sustainability considerations. For many years, helium was the obvious default in capillary GC because it offered what routine laboratories need: inertness, good GC–MS compatibility, and reliable performance across a wide range of applications [1]. That preference was well justified technically. At the same time, it led many laboratories to regard helium as part of the background infrastructure rather than as a dependency that might itself become a problem [2].
That view is now much harder to maintain. Helium is a finite, non-renewable resource recovered mainly as a by-product of natural gas processing, and laboratories depend on a limited number of global production hubs for supply [3]. In mid-March 2026, that fragility was again obvious. In our Occupational and Environmental medicine laboratory at Linköping University Hospital, we had already been invoiced for a 50 L cylinder of GC–MS-grade helium at several times the price we would have paid a few years earlier, even before the latest Gulf escalation. Within days, disruption affecting Qatari production pushed helium markets sharply upward again. For laboratories, this is the real setting in which carrier-gas choices are now made. The issue is no longer only analytical performance. It is also exposure to a supply chain that remains geopolitically fragile.
Working in analytical science?
Register for a FREE Separation Science account to subscribe to the Separation Science Newsletter.
This is one reason why hydrogen has attracted renewed interest. It is appealing not only because it can be cheaper and faster in many GC methods, but also because it changes the laboratory’s dependency profile. Hydrogen can often support faster separations than helium, and when it is generated on site, reliance on cylinders and external deliveries is reduced [1]. Still, the sustainability argument is more complex than the familiar “helium bad, hydrogen good” storyline. The recent life cycle assessment (LCA) study [2] examined this question under routine GC conditions by comparing helium with two hydrogen supply routes: merchant hydrogen produced by on-site hydrogen generation by proton-exchange-membrane electrolysis and steam methane reforming. The study modeled one chromatographic analysis as the functional unit and also examined a ten-year utilization scenario to explore what happens when faster methods translate into higher throughput [2].
How the Study Changes the Helium vs Hydrogen Discussion
The most important contribution of the study is not simply that hydrogen performed better than helium on a per-analysis basis. More important is the reason for that difference. The advantage did not arise mainly from avoiding helium extraction. It was driven primarily by shorter analysis time. In the modeled GC method, based on EPA Method 8270E [4], the helium method had a total runtime of about 22 min, whereas the hydrogen method required 13 min [2]. Because instrument electricity demand scaled with operating time, the shorter hydrogen run also reduced per-analysis electricity consumption from around 1.1 kWh to 0.7 kWh [2]. This is a useful practical shift in perspective. Carrier-gas choice should not be viewed only as a question of which gas is used, but also of what that choice means for runtime, energy demand, and laboratory workflow.
This matters because helium’s analytical strengths remain real. Helium is chemically inert, non-flammable, highly compatible with GC–MS, and still performs very well in many routine methods. The point is therefore not that helium has become analytically outdated. Rather, its operational context has changed. Gas may still be analytically excellent and yet represent a fragile choice from the perspective of supply and laboratory resilience. That is now the situation with helium [2].
The study also showed that hydrogen cannot be treated as environmentally equivalent regardless of how it is supplied. On-site electrolysis and fossil-derived merchant hydrogen did not behave identically. Although hydrogen generally outperformed helium per analysis across the modeled impact categories, electrolytic hydrogen showed higher ecotoxicity in some categories because the electricity supply and associated trace-metal emissions became more influential. This is an important nuance. Hydrogen should not be presented as inherently green. Its environmental performance depends strongly on how it is produced and on the electricity used in that production. In a low-carbon electricity system, electrolytic hydrogen becomes much more attractive; in a more carbon- and impact-intensive grid, the advantage can narrow [2].
Practical Questions Laboratories Should Ask Before Switching to Hydrogen
A better starting point than simply asking whether to switch to hydrogen is to ask what is actually driving the footprint of a given method. In the modeled case, shorter runtime and lower electricity use mattered more than the abstract fact that hydrogen was used instead of helium. That suggests a practical sequence for laboratories: first examine whether method translation, temperature programming, flow conditions, or scheduling can reduce instrument time without compromising data quality. If hydrogen enables that safely and robustly, it may provide both environmental and operational benefits.
Another question concerns the electricity context. On-site hydrogen generation can reduce dependence on cylinders, but from an environmental perspective it makes strongest sense when electricity is relatively low-carbon and low-impact. This is especially relevant in Europe, where grid mixes can vary substantially between countries and also between procurement strategies. In practice, carrier-gas decisions cannot be separated from the energy system that supports them. The relevant unit of evaluation is the whole setup: gas source, instrument runtime, and electricity mix.
How the laboratory will use any time saved is an issue often overlooked. In the ten-year utilization scenario, hydrogen’s faster runtime increased potential throughput. That seems beneficial at first glance, but it also increased cumulative use of energy and consumables, leading to higher burdens in several midpoint indicators despite better per-run performance. This is a familiar systems effect: greater efficiency does not automatically reduce total impact if it encourages more activity overall. In practice, faster GC only becomes a sustainability benefit if the saved time is used to reduce backlog, avoid unnecessary reruns, cut standby operation, or improve planning, rather than simply to process more samples as a default response.
Where the Overlooked Levers Really Are in the Helium vs Hydrogen Comparison
One of the most useful outcomes of the study is that it pushes the discussion beyond carrier gas alone. The inventory for one analysis also included electricity, solvents, a vial, an aluminum cap with septum, and waste treatment. Once runtime-related energy demand falls, these routine consumables become proportionally more important. This means that laboratories aiming to reduce the footprint of GC work should not stop at gas selection. Reruns, batching strategy, solvent use, standby time, and consumables management also matter and may be easier to improve in day-to-day practice.
Hydrogen can support faster separations and improve resilience in the face of helium shortages, while also making clear that the transition is a matter of laboratory practice, including safety, source selection, and operational setup [1]. The present LCA adds an environmental evidence base to that broader discussion. Its main message is not that hydrogen should automatically replace helium, but that the clearest sustainability gains appear when hydrogen is introduced as part of wider method and workflow optimization.
Safety, of course, remains non-negotiable. Hydrogen is flammable, and laboratories cannot treat it as a universal drop-in replacement. Method compatibility, instrument suitability, leak detection, shutdown systems, ventilation, and staff training still need to be validated properly. Sustainability is not a reason to lower safety standards. The practical challenge is to address sustainability, resilience, and safety at the same time. A well-managed hydrogen workflow can offer real advantages, but only in laboratories with the technical setup and procedural discipline needed to support it safely.
What This Means for Laboratory Managers Considering Hydrogen
For practitioners, the most useful takeaway is that helium should no longer be seen only as the gold-standard carrier gas. It should also be recognized as a resource associated with real operational risk: finite, geopolitically exposed, and increasingly difficult to treat as routine. Hydrogen, meanwhile, should not be presented as a simple green replacement. It is better understood as a potentially enabling option that can reduce per-analysis impacts, especially through shorter runtime, while also improving supply autonomy. Whether that translates into a genuine sustainability benefit depends on electricity supply, workflow decisions, and consumables management.
This leads to a more realistic strategy for analytical laboratories. First, identify which GC methods are most exposed to helium cost or supply risk. Second, determine where hydrogen can shorten runtime without compromising analytical fitness for purpose. Third, connect any transition plan to electricity sourcing, maintenance routines, and sample-management practices. Finally, include consumables use and reruns in the same sustainability assessment. The central lesson of the study is not that one carrier gas is universally correct. It is that laboratories achieve better environmental performance when they manage the GC workflow as a whole, rather than focusing on gas substitution alone.
Figure 1. Why helium has become a laboratory vulnerability
Figure 2. What actually drives the difference between helium and hydrogen
Table 1. Three questions laboratories should ask before changing carrier gas
Key question | What it means in practice | Why it matters (based on this study [2]) | Practical actions for laboratories |
What drives the footprint of the method? | Identify whether environmental impact is dominated by carrier gas itself or by method runtime, electricity use, and workflow design | The study showed that shorter runtime and lower electricity demand, rather than gas identity alone, explained most of hydrogen’s advantage on a per-analysis basis | Review method parameters (temperature program, flow, column choice), optimize runtime, minimize unnecessary instrument time, and evaluate hydrogen where it enables faster separations |
What is the electricity context? | Assess the carbon intensity and environmental profile of electricity used for GC operation and hydrogen generation | The environmental performance of hydrogen, especially electrolytic hydrogen, depends strongly on electricity supply; higher-impact grids can reduce or offset benefits | Consider electricity sourcing (e.g., renewable contracts), evaluate on-site hydrogen generation only in suitable energy contexts, and include electricity in LCA or internal sustainability assessments |
What will the laboratory do with the time saved? | Determine how increased analytical throughput will be used in practice | In the ten-year scenario, faster methods increased total throughput, which raised cumulative energy and consumables use despite lower impact per analysis | Use time savings to reduce backlog, avoid reruns, decrease standby time, and improve planning rather than simply increasing sample volume without control |
Table 2. Practical levers beyond carrier-gas choice
Lever | What it involves | Why it matters (based on this study) | Practical actions for laboratories |
Method-time reduction | Shortening GC runtime through method optimization (temperature program, flow, column selection) | Runtime strongly drives electricity use per analysis, which was a key factor behind hydrogen’s lower impact | Optimize temperature ramps, adjust flow conditions, evaluate shorter columns or alternative methods where analytically acceptable |
Batching and scheduling | Organizing samples to maximize instrument utilization and minimize idle or start-stop operation | Reduces energy use per sample and avoids inefficient instrument cycling | Run samples in larger batches, align sample preparation with instrument availability, reduce frequent start/stop cycles |
Fewer reruns | Minimizing repeat analyses due to poor quality, instability, or method issues | Reruns increase both energy use and consumables consumption per valid result | Improve QA/QC routines, stabilize methods, ensure proper calibration and maintenance, reduce avoidable analytical errors |
Consumables discipline | Managing use of vials, caps, septa, solvents, and other routine materials | As energy demand decreases, consumables become a larger share of total impact | Reduce solvent volumes where possible, optimize sample preparation, avoid unnecessary disposables, improve waste segregation |
Standby and idle time reduction | Limiting energy consumption when instruments are not actively analyzing samples | Standby operation contributes to background energy demand over time | Use standby or sleep modes, switch off unused modules, align operating hours with actual workload |
Safer hydrogen implementation | Introducing hydrogen as a carrier gas with appropriate safety and operational controls | Enables faster methods and reduced dependency on helium, but requires proper risk management | Install leak detection, ensure proper ventilation, validate shutdown systems, train staff, follow instrument-specific safety guidelines |
References
[1] Ellis, J., Kounovsky-Shafer, K., Hydrogen or Helium Conservation in Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry: How We Chose What Was Right for Our Laboratory. ACS Chemical Health and Safety. 2023, 30, 151-155.10.1021/acs.chas.3c00020
[2] Hetman, I., Life cycle assessment of hydrogen and helium as carrier gases in gas chromatography analysis. Green Chem. 2026, 28, 839-851.10.1039/D5GC05912G
[3] Wilkinson, S., Gerth, F., A Review of the Sustainability of Helium: An Assessment of Its Past, Present and a Zero-Carbon Future. Regional Science and Environmental Economics. 2024, 1, 78-103.10.3390/rsee1010006
[4] EPA, U. S., Method 8270E (SW-846): Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/ Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). 2014.
