What capabilities should labs consider when choosing a chromatography data system (CDS) for GC?

Selecting a chromatography data system (CDS) for gas chromatography (GC) is often more complex than it first appears. Beyond basic data acquisition and reporting, labs must balance instrument compatibility, regulatory expectations, long-term data access, and the realities of mixed or aging hardware fleets.

This article outlines the core capabilities that matter most when evaluating a GC-focused CDS, with particular attention to areas where vendor claims are often unclear or incomplete.

Driver and communication layers: what really matters

At the heart of any CDS is how it communicates with GC instruments. This layer determines not only which instruments can be connected, but also how stable, maintainable, and future-proof the system will be.

Native drivers vs abstraction layers

GC communication generally falls into two broad categories:

• Native (vendor-specific) drivers developed directly by the CDS vendor

• Abstraction layers such as RC.Net / ICF that sit between the CDS and the instrument

Abstraction layers can simplify access to modern instruments and reduce duplication of development effort. However, they introduce an additional dependency: compatibility is now governed by the driver framework as well as the CDS itself. Updates to firmware, drivers, or operating systems may require coordinated updates across all layers.

Native drivers, by contrast, often offer tighter control and fewer moving parts, but typically require more effort to support a wide range of instruments.

One-way vs two-way communication

Not all digital GC connections offer the same level of interaction. Some systems allow full method download and runtime feedback, while others provide one-way control or limited parameter visibility.

Labs should clarify:

• Whether the CDS can send setpoints only, or also read back runtime conditions

• Whether acquisition metadata is captured automatically or must be managed manually

• How communication limitations affect audit trails and troubleshooting

These distinctions are rarely highlighted in marketing materials but can be critical in regulated or automated environments.

Multi-vendor GC instrument support

Many laboratories operate mixed GC fleets acquired over long periods. A CDS that performs well with a single manufacturer may be less practical when multiple vendors or legacy instruments are involved.

Key considerations include:

• Support for older GC models that are no longer sold but remain operational

• Consistency of operation across different manufacturers

• Whether adding a new instrument requires replacing drivers, upgrading the CDS, or changing workflows

True multi-vendor support is not simply a matter of listing compatible instruments. It depends on whether the CDS can integrate different communication methods, detector types, and data formats without forcing the lab into parallel systems.

Long-term file compatibility and data access

Chromatographic data often needs to remain accessible for decades, particularly in regulated industries. File formats and backward compatibility therefore matter as much as current features.

When evaluating a CDS, labs should ask:

• Whether files created today will remain readable in future software versions

• Whether older files can be opened without conversion or reprocessing

• How metadata, audit information, and user fields are preserved over time

Some systems rely on periodic file migration or format changes that introduce risk and administrative overhead. Others prioritize continuity, allowing data generated years or decades apart to coexist within the same environment.

Regulatory considerations in GC environments

Regulatory compliance is often discussed in broad terms, but GC workflows impose specific requirements that are easy to overlook.

Important areas include:

• User access control and authentication

• Audit trails for data creation, modification, and review

• Traceability of acquisition parameters and instrument state

• Retention of original raw data alongside processed results

Compliance is not solely a function of software features. It also depends on how the CDS is deployed, configured, and used in practice. A system that supports compliance without enforcing rigid enterprise workflows can be advantageous for smaller or technically focused labs.

Upgrade paths and lifecycle management

A CDS is rarely replaced frequently. Many labs expect stable operation over long periods, even as operating systems, hardware, and instruments evolve.

Practical lifecycle questions include:

• Whether upgrades preserve existing data and configurations

• How instrument support is handled as vendors discontinue models

• Whether older versions remain usable alongside newer ones

• The impact of upgrades on validation and requalification effort

Systems designed around incremental evolution tend to impose fewer disruptions than those built on periodic, large-scale architectural changes.

Which capabilities matter most — and which often do not for chromatography data system for GC

In practice, labs often benefit more from reliability and continuity than from advanced enterprise features.

Capabilities that typically matter most:

• Stable GC acquisition across a wide range of instruments

• Predictable behavior over long timeframes

• Transparent handling of data, files, and metadata

• Clear limits and documented behavior rather than opaque automation

Capabilities that are often less critical in GC-only environments:

• Enterprise-wide informatics platforms

• Highly centralized workflow enforcement

• Features designed primarily for LC or MS-centric labs

The value of a CDS lies in how well it fits the actual scope of the laboratory, not in how broad its theoretical reach may be.

Chromperfect’s position in this landscape

Chromperfect is an independent chromatography data system focused specifically on GC environments. It emphasizes practical deployment, multi-vendor support, and long-term data continuity rather than enterprise informatics or laboratory-wide workflow management.

It is not designed to replace LIMS platforms or to act as a centralized informatics backbone. Instead, it addresses the core needs of GC laboratories that value stability, transparency, and longevity in their data systems.

Making an informed choice

Choosing a CDS for GC is ultimately about matching capabilities to real operational needs. By looking beyond surface-level feature lists and asking detailed questions about drivers, compatibility, data longevity, and lifecycle behavior, labs can avoid costly surprises and select systems that remain fit for purpose over time.

A well-chosen CDS should fade into the background of daily work — reliably collecting, preserving, and presenting data — while remaining adaptable to the gradual evolution of instruments and regulatory expectations.