Balancing Sustainability and Specimen Protection

Introduction

Biobanks are critical infrastructures that support modern biomedical research by preserving and distributing high-quality biospecimens for discovery science, clinical translation, and precision medicine. The value of biobanking lies in its ability to safeguard irreplaceable specimens under highly controlled conditions, often over decades, ensuring they remain suitable for future research applications.¹ To achieve this, biobanks rely heavily on ultra-low temperature (ULT) freezers and liquid nitrogen (LN₂) systems, which are among the most energy-intensive assets in academic research environments.²

This creates a dual challenge. On one hand, institutions are under increasing pressure to reduce the environmental footprint of research infrastructure in alignment with broader sustainability commitments.³ On the other, biobanks must maintain uncompromising standards of quality and continuity to protect biospecimens, meet regulatory requirements (e.g., CAP Biorepository Accreditation Program), and preserve trust with research participants.⁴ Efforts to reduce energy use or rationalize equipment therefore cannot come at the expense of specimen protection or emergency readiness.

Although best practice frameworks from ISBER and CAP provide high-level guidance on sustainability and continuity planning, there is limited literature describing institutional models that successfully integrate both elements.^4–6 Most published reports focus on either technical advances in freezer efficiency or broad policy calls for greener laboratories, with few examples grounded in operational realities of large academic biobanks. Unlike simple replacement of outdated equipment, this model couples infrastructure upgrades with institutional governance, yielding sustainability, quality, and contingency gains not achievable through technology refresh alone.

The present case study describes the Johns Hopkins Biobank’s approach to achieving sustainability gains while strengthening specimen protection and contingency planning. Specifically, we highlight interventions in centralized freezer management, storage modality decisions, governance policies, and community engagement. By embedding sustainability within an institutional governance framework, the Biobank demonstrates that environmental responsibility and high-quality biobanking are not competing priorities, but mutually reinforcing goals ( Figure 1 and see Table 1 for the intervention framework).

Figure 1. Balancing sustainability, quality, and continuity in biobanking operations.

Conceptual framework illustrating how the Johns Hopkins Biobank integrates sustainability, specimen protection, and contingency preparedness. Vapor-phase liquid nitrogen (LN₂) storage provides colder, more stable conditions for high-value specimens while reducing reliance on electricity-intensive ultra-low temperature (ULT) freezers. The MVE Vario freezer system offers an energy-efficient alternative when LN₂ storage is not feasible, allowing flexible temperature set points with lower energy consumption and heat output. Together with centralized governance, continuous monitoring, and emergency preparedness, these strategies create a balanced, resilient infrastructure where sustainability and specimen protection reinforce rather than compete with one another.

Methods/Approach

The Johns Hopkins Biobank is a College of American Pathologists (CAP)–accredited repository that operates as part of a larger service-center to support research across the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and its affiliated institutions. Unlike departmental freezers, which often function in isolation, the Biobank serves as a shared institutional resource: delivering high-quality storage at scale, reducing costs, and providing 24/7 monitoring and emergency response. As a service center, the BioBank is structured to support quality, rigor, and reproducibility while minimizing duplication and institutional burden.

In 2021, working with a committee on research efficiencies, the Biobank in conjunction with purchasing and institutional leadership, led an audit of freezer assets across the School of Medicine. The school includes 34 departments across two campuses (East Baltimore and Bayview) and more than 4,500 faculty. The audit identified nearly 1,300 ultra-low temperature (ULT) freezers in use, of which 938 (over 70%) were past the median life expectancy of 8.5 years.² Many operated at reduced efficiency, highlighting both the scale of energy burden and the risks associated with outdated infrastructure.

Based on these findings, new policies were established to incentivize high-efficiency replacements and to encourage migration of cohorts into centralized facilities such as the Johns Hopkins Biobank. Specimen deposits were managed as service requests, with annual storage charges applied to ensure cost neutrality and long-term sustainability of the service center. This centralized governance and shared-resource approach is depicted in the institutional model ( Figure 1). Purpose-built facilities with optimized cooling, ventilation and centralized monitoring created efficiencies that individual laboratories could not achieve.

Inventory records for all centralized collections are incorporated into the Biobank’s LIMS, supporting chain-of-custody, audit trails, and recovery planning. Associated clinical or research data remain with the investigator, consistent with consent governance and data stewardship policies. This separation ensures that enhancing physical storage does not alter data oversight or regulatory pathways.

Results & discussion

This case study demonstrates that academic biobanks can advance sustainability efforts, operational resilience, and uncompromising specimen protection within a service-center framework ( Table 1). Biobanking is often perceived as energy- and cost-intensive, yet deliberate infrastructure planning and governance reduced institutional burden while improving quality and oversight. Of the three primary objectives, sustainability benefits manifested earliest, while gains in sample protection and continuity expanded progressively as centralized infrastructure and monitoring matured.

A Johns Hopkins School of Medicine audit confirmed widespread reliance on aging, inefficient ULT freezers. Energy analyses performed during the audit demonstrated the substantial environmental burden of aging ULT freezers. Units older than 10 years showed 30–75% higher energy consumption, and those exceeding 20 years used over 100% more electricity than newer systems. Within the School of Medicine, more than 330 freezers fall within these age categories, representing significant avoidable demand on HVAC and electrical infrastructure. By contrast, LN₂ vapor-based and Variō systems eliminate mechanical compressor load and associated cooling requirements, providing an immediately impactful sustainability mechanism as outdated freezers are retired.

Within the School of Medicine, these aging freezers consume an estimated additional $800K annually in avoidable electricity and HVAC load, based on industry-validated energy modeling (including manufacturer performance curves and published ULT power consumption data). This infrastructure inefficiency is disproportionately driven by decentralized research storage, which accounts for ~80% of ULT assets across campus. These findings reinforced both the urgency and opportunity for transitioning toward centralized, nitrogen-based storage.

Adoption of centralized storage is inherently a gradual process, tied to equipment failure cycles, research timelines, voluntary participation and cultural adaptation. Most ULT freezers in academic settings are only replaced at end-of-life, and failure events are unpredictable. Accordingly, achieving full transition across eligible collections is expected to occur over multiple years rather than rapid turnover, with each unit failure representing an opportunity to migrate to sustainable, governed storage.

By working directly with departments and laboratory leads, the Biobank helped consolidate cohorts into centralized freezer farms and retire outdated units. Prioritization of LN₂ vapor-phase and Variō storage reduced energy demand, simplified maintenance, and enhanced monitoring. Governance policies reinforced these operational changes. Investigators were required to evaluate Biobank options before replacing failed freezers, turning each replacement decision into an opportunity to expand community-based storage. When centralized Biobanking or Variō systems were not feasible, Biobank staff provided tailored consultation to guide freezer selection, ensuring that any new purchases advanced institutional sustainability goals.

Because the initiative was intentionally tied to natural equipment life cycles, adoption has been incremental rather than a single large transition. Since 2021, centralized storage within the Biobank has stabilized the equivalent capacity of approximately 42 ultra-low temperature freezers, eliminating the need for laboratories to maintain or replace those units and reducing institutional exposure to aging, high-risk infrastructure. The Biobank functions as a living system, inventory increases as new studies launch and decreases as legacy materials are dispositioned, ensuring storage capacity remains aligned with current scientific demand rather than historical accumulation. Importantly, the cost-recovery model requires investigators to review their holdings before migration, often reducing storage volume by removing obsolete or unused specimens. This cultural shift, shifting from ownership of freezers to stewardship of only what is scientifically necessary, is a central component of the sustainability and governance strategy. Rather than a one-to-one mapping of departmental assets, the evolving centralized model drives more efficient use of space, energy, and institutional oversight over time.

The Johns Hopkins model aligns with ISBER Best Practices and CAP Biorepository Accreditation Standards, which emphasize monitoring, redundancy, and quality management. Consolidating freezer assets, prioritizing LN₂ vapor-phase storage, adopting efficient ULT technologies such as the MVE Variō, and embedding oversight into equipment purchasing translated these standards into institutional practice.

As summarized in Figure 1, the dual storage strategy was particularly impactful. LN₂ provided unmatched protection for viable and irreplaceable specimens, while the MVE Variō offered a cost-efficient alternative for ULT collections, reducing both electricity demand and facility cooling requirements. This complementary approach maximized sample stability while minimizing financial and operational risks.

Equally important were governance and engagement. By requiring investigators to evaluate centralized options before acquiring or replacing freezers, Johns Hopkins turned each equipment failure into an opportunity to expand community-based biobanking. Where community-based storage was not possible, direct consultation ensured that institutional sustainability principles guided freezer purchases across campus. Faculty engagement through seminars and outreach further embedded shared stewardship into research culture, shifting responsibility from individual laboratories to the institution.

Although governance was strengthened through institutional oversight of storage assets, specimen ownership and decision-making authority always remain with the principal investigator. Investigators retain full control over access, use, and distribution of their collections, regardless of whether specimens are held in departmental units or in the centralized Biobank. Centralization does, however, standardize stewardship expectations, including inventory documentation, access controls, and continuity planning, ensuring that biospecimens remain protected and discoverable even as personnel or research priorities change. This model strengthens stewardship of physical materials while preserving existing data-access controls and consent protections, ensuring that participant trust and regulatory compliance remain intact. Transition risks included temporary access delays during migration, variation in laboratory readiness for inventory cleanup, and the need for stakeholder adaptation to new workflows. These were mitigated through phased adoption, parallel storage validation, and contingency support from the Biobank’s at-temperature backup network. No specimen losses or research disruptions occurred during the transition period.

Although this represents a single-institution experience, the principles such as auditing freezer assets, centralizing storage, prioritizing LN₂ systems, adopting efficient ULT alternatives, embedding consultation into purchasing, and investing in monitoring and contingency—are broadly adaptable. The specific balance of centralized versus decentralized storage will differ by institution, but the framework presented here can be adapted according to local space constraints, resource availability, and regulatory environments. Academic centers facing similar pressures to improve efficiency and accountability can adopt variations of this model to strengthen both financial stability and biospecimen quality.

Conclusion

The Johns Hopkins Biobank illustrates how sustainable practices and specimen protection can be advanced simultaneously through a service-center model. Consolidation of freezer assets, prioritization of LN₂ vapor-phase storage, adoption of MVE Variō systems, and governance embedded into equipment replacement reduced costs, strengthened oversight, and enhanced compliance. Centralized monitoring, redundant infrastructure, and 24/7 emergency response ensured continuity of operations, while faculty outreach fostered a culture of shared stewardship. Importantly, requiring investigators to consider community-based biobanking before replacing failed freezers transformed equipment failures into opportunities for institutional strengthening.

This case provides a practical framework for other academic biobanks seeking to balance financial stability with uncompromising quality and continuity, demonstrating that efficiency and rigor can be achieved together. Ultimately, this model demonstrates that sustainability initiatives can also serve as quality initiatives, improving research rigor and resiliency while reducing institutional risk.

Ethics statement

This work did not involve direct recruitment of human participants or the generation of new human subject data. All biospecimens referenced are managed within the Johns Hopkins Biobank under existing institutional review board approvals. The case study focuses solely on institutional infrastructure and operational practices, with no use of identifiable participant information.