Skip to content

About

No description, website, or topics provided.

Resources

Stars

0 stars

Watchers

0 watching

Forks

Latest commit

 

History

1 Commit

Folders and files

NameName
Last commit message
Last commit date
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Repository files navigation

EPD Data Quality and Comparison

A small project comparing the Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) of two 12.5 mm gypsum boards: SINIAT GKB Scan/Standard and DURAGIPS A 12.5.

The aim was to extract the data, check whether the results can be compared, and explain the main differences in plain language.

What I did

  • Collected product details, methods and environmental results in Excel.
  • Checked the extracted values against the original EPDs.
  • Compared climate impacts by life-cycle module and reviewed selected A1–A3 indicators.
  • Created a reusable quality checklist and a one-page findings summary.

Main findings

SINIAT reports lower production-stage climate impact (A1–A3): −0.857, compared with 1.03 kg CO₂ eq./m² for DURAGIPS. The negative value is driven by biogenic carbon and does not, on its own, show a whole-life climate benefit.

DURAGIPS reports lower climate impacts for transport to site and installation, as well as lower A1–A3 acidification and eutrophication results.

The comparison has limits. The boards have different masses, and the EPDs use different data years and scenarios. SINIAT assumes 63% recycling and 37% landfill at end of life; DURAGIPS assumes 100% landfill. Both cite c-PCR-031, but their date/version references need clarification.

The review also found a reporting inconsistency: DURAGIPS omits C1–C4 from its boundary summary, although those modules appear in its detailed results. SINIAT marks B1–B7 as not declared, while DURAGIPS reports zero. These reporting statuses should be kept distinct.

Conclusion: the EPDs support a comparison with limitations, but do not establish an overall environmental winner. Module D is considered separately.

Project files

File Content
Data extraction and checks Product information, environmental results and quality checks
GWP comparison chart Reported climate impacts by module
EPD quality checklist A blank checklist for future EPD reviews
One-page findings Main results and comparison limits
Source EPDs The two documents used in the review

Sources

  • SINIAT GKB Scan/Standard: PLADUR GYPSUM, S.A.U., EPD-IES—0024793:06; revised 5 August 2026.
  • DURAGIPS A 12.5: Saint-Gobain Construction Products România, EPD-IES:0026991:001; published 20 November 2025.

This project reviews the supplied EPD versions. It is a data extraction and comparability exercise, not a new life-cycle assessment or a product recommendation.

About

No description, website, or topics provided.

Resources

Stars

0 stars

Watchers

0 watching

Forks

Releases

Packages

Contributors