Ceiling Finishes

Fiberglass Acoustic Ceiling Panel

Drop / Suspended Ceiling

Note: Material Library content is currently under peer-review

Fiberglass Acoustic Ceiling PanelGWP = 3.44E+00 Kg Co2 eqDiv = 09 51 00 Service Life = N/AUnit Size = 0.093 m2 (1 sq ft) EPD Evaluation

Drop / Suspended CeilingGWP = 261 kg CO2 eqDiv = 09 51 23Service Life = N/A Unit Size = 1 sq m EPD Evaluation

Product Sustainability Assessment

PROs

Low Ozone Depletion Potential: 2.52E-08 kg CFC-11 eq is relatively low compared to other products.
Low Waste Production: Hazardous waste: 2.81E-03 kg (low), Non-hazardous waste: 0.834 kg (moderate)
Reusable Potential: Panels can be reused if kept in good condition, which can extend product life and reduce waste.
Durable Composition: Fiberglass (44.09%) and metal extrusion (21.17%) contribute to product longevity and resistance to damage.

CONs

Landfill Disposal: 100% of the product goes to landfill at end of life, with no recycling pathways.
Eutrophication Potential: 1.55E-03 kg N eq, indicating some nutrient pollution potential during A1-A3 stages.
Resource-Intensive: Manufacturing phase (A3) is a notable contributor to ozone depletion, while raw material extraction (A1) dominates most other environmental impacts.
VOC Information Missing: No VOC emissions data provided in the EPD, leaving indoor air quality impact unclear.

PROs

High Recyclability Potential: 94.1% aluminum (typically highly recyclable). Steel (5.3%) also has good recycling pathways. Recycled content: 25% for aluminum and 22% for steel, reducing virgin material use.
Moderate Ozone Depletion Potential: 2.77E-07 kg CFC-11 eq is low compared to some other materials.
Durable Materials: Aluminum and steel contribute to long product lifespan and resistance to corrosion.

CONs

High Non-Hazardous Waste Production: 86.2 kg of non-hazardous waste is relatively high compared to other products.
High Energy Demand:Renewable primary resource energy: 1.57E+03 MJ. Non-renewable primary resource energy: 2.73E+03 MJ. Energy consumption is significant throughout A1-A3 stages (raw material extraction, transport, and manufacturing).
High Eutrophication Potential: 4.87E-02 kg N eq—higher than many other building materials, indicating potential nutrient pollution during production.

Acoustic Lay-in Tile

Vaulted Ceiling

Acoustic Lay-in TileGWP = 41.8 kg CO2 eqDiv = 09 51 23 Service Life = N/AUnit Size = 1 sq mEPD Evaluation

Vaulted Ceiling GWP = 1.48 Kg CO2 eqDiv = 09 22 16Service Life = N/A Unit Size = 0.093 m2 (1 sq ft) EPD Evaluation

Product Sustainability Assessment

PROs

High Recycled Content: 92% aluminum with 25% recycled content. 5.7% PET (soft sound) with 60% recycled content.
Potential for High Recyclability: Aluminum and PET are both widely recyclable materials. Packaging materials (wood, cardboard, plywood) are likely recyclable, though LDPE film could be more challenging.
Low Ozone Depletion Potential: 4.33E-08 kg CFC-11 eq, indicating minimal ozone layer impact.
Energy Surplus Declared: 4.50E+01 MJ energy surplus from fossil fuel resources, which suggests efficient energy recovery processes during A1-A3 stages.

CONs

High Eutrophication Potential: 1.11E-02 kg N eq, indicating potential nutrient pollution—higher than some other materials.
Raw Material Extraction is Impact-Heavy: A1 phase (raw material extraction) is the dominant contributor to environmental impacts, especially due to aluminum production.
End-of-Life Uncertainty: Packaging and product end-of-life pathways are not explicitly stated. LDPE packaging film may end up in landfill or be difficult to recycle.
VOC Levels Not Declared: No VOC emissions data is provided, which could be a concern for indoor air quality assessments.

PROs

High Natural Material Content: 84.4% lumber and 7.7% wood backer – wood is a renewable resource and can store carbon.
Low Ozone Depletion Potential: 2.08x10-7 kg CFC-11 eq, indicating minimal ozone impact.
Renewable Energy Utilization: 6.59 MJ of renewable primary resource energy used during A1-A3 stages, reflecting some reliance on sustainable energy sources.
Net Energy Surplus Declared: 2.97 MJ fossil fuel depletion surplus, indicating some efficiency in fossil fuel energy use during production.

CONs

High Packaging Waste Likely to End Up in Landfill: Plywood (67.6%), cardboard (25.2%), foam (4.3%), stretch wrap (2.4%), tape (0.3%). Foam, stretch wrap, and tape are notoriously difficult to recycle, and plywood often ends up in landfill.
End-of-Life Waste Uncertainty: Linear wood panels are often disposed of in landfill if not reused, though wood can sometimes be repurposed.
Transportation Impact Noted: A2 stage (transportation of raw materials) is highlighted as a significant contributor, which may reflect long-distance sourcing of wood or other materials.

Gypsum Board (Drywall)

Steel Panel System

Gypsum Board (Drywall)GWP = 1.67E+02 kg CO2 eqDiv = 09 29 13Service Life = 75 yearsUnit Size = 92.9 square meters (748 Kg)EPD Evaluation

Steel Suspended Panel System GWP = 162 kg CO2 eqDiv = 09 51 23Service Life = N/A Unit Size = 1 sq m EPD Evaluation

Product Sustainability Assessment

PROs

Common, Widely Available Material: Standardized and accessible, making it easy to source and supporting efficient supply chains.
Contains Reclaimed Gypsum: Portion of reclaimed gypsum reduces demand for virgin materials.
Low Hazardous Waste Output: 4.08E-04 kg hazardous waste is relatively low compared to other materials.
Low Ozone Depletion Potential: 6.62E-08 kg CFC-11 eq, indicating minimal impact on the ozone layer.

CONs

High Fossil Fuel Depletion: 4.45E+02 MJ fossil fuel depletion during A1-A3 stages, indicating energy-intensive production processes.
Significant Eutrophication Potential: 9.85E-02 kg N eq suggests substantial nutrient pollution, potentially impacting waterways.
Extraction & Manufacturing Phases Dominate Impact: A1 (raw material extraction) is driven by natural gypsum extraction and face/backer materials. A3 (manufacturing) is dominated by natural gas and electricity usage.
End-of-Life Waste Concerns: Gypsum board is often landfilled and can generate hydrogen sulfide gas in anaerobic landfill conditions, raising long-term environmental concerns if not properly handled.

PROs

High Recyclability: The panels are composed of 72.8% aluminum (highly recyclable) and 20.5% steel (also recyclable)
Low Ozone Depletion: Ozone depletion potential is very low (1.12E-08 kg CFC 11eq)
Durable and Reusable: Proper maintenance could extend the lifespan and enable reuse
Hazardous Waste Minimization: Very low hazardous waste production (3.00E-05 kg)

CONs

High Energy Consumption: Significant non-renewable energy use during production (1.75E+03 MJ)
Eutrophication Potential: Moderate eutrophication potential (3.23E-02 kg N eq)
Packaging Waste: Packaging materials include lumber (2.78 kg/m2), plywood (2.33 kg/m2), and cardboard (0.16 kg/m2), which may not be fully sustainable
Waste: Significant waste produced (4.95E+01 kg)
EOL: plans for end of life are not addressed in EPD

Aluminum Frame (T-Bar Framing)

Composite Wood Panels

Aluminum Frame (T-Bar Framing) GWP = 1.43E-01 kg CO2 eqDiv = 09 51 13 Service Life = 75 YearsUnit Size = 0.093 sq m (1 sq ft)EPD Evaluation

Composite Wood Panels GWP = 1.94 Kg CO2 eqDiv = 09 22 16Service Life = N/A Unit Size = 0.093 sq m (1 sq ft)EPD Evaluation

Product Sustainability Assessment

PROs

High Recyclability: The system is designed for disassembly and reuse at the end of the building's life.
Low VOC: Very low VOC emissions during use contributing to better indoor air quality.
Low Ozone Depletion Potential: Minimal ozone depletion potential (5.05E-10 kg CFC 11-eq)
Eutrophication Potential: Very low eutrophication potential (2.13E-05 kg N eq)
Waste: Minimal waste produced (2.72E-05 Kg)

CONs

High Steel Content: The system is composed of 99.6% galvanized steel
High Energy Consumption: The manufacturing process is the largest contributor to environmental impact
EOL: Recycling in only assumed but there is no formal declaration or data on the actual recycling rates or processes

PROs

Renewable Material Content: The panels are composed of 83.4% lumber, a renewable resource
Low Hazardous Waste: Minimal hazardous waste produced (3.20x10⁻⁵ kg)
Moderate Renewable Energy Use: Use of renewable primary resource energy (6.92 MJ)
Low Ozone Depletion Potential: Relatively low ozone depletion potential (6.38x10⁻⁷ kg CFC-11 eq)
Potential for Reuse:If properly maintained, the wood components could be reused or repurposed

CONs

High Non-Renewable Energy Use: Significant use of non-renewable primary resource energy (33 MJ)
Fossil Fuel Depletion: Fossil fuel depletion is a major impact (3.95 MJ surplus), second only to global warming potential (GWP)
Manufacturing Impact: The manufacturing phase (A3) is the largest contributor to environmental impact, followed by raw material transportation
Limited Recyclability: The composite nature of the panels (with stains, topcoats, fabric backers, etc.) reduces recyclability compared to pure wood products

Acoustic Fabric Panel

T-Bar Ceiling Tile

Acoustic Fabric Panel GWP = 2.40E+00 Kg Co2 eqDiv = 09 51 00 Service Life = N/AUnit Size = 0.093 sq m (1 sq ft) EPD Evaluation

T-Bar Ceiling Tile GWP = 3.72E-01 Kg Co2 eqDiv = 09 51 23Service Life = 75 Years Unit Size = 0.093 sq m (1 sq ft) EPD Evaluation

Product Sustainability Assessment

PROs

Reusability Potential: Panels can be reused if kept in good condition.
Low Ozone Depletion Potential: Relatively low ozone depletion potential (2.84E-08 kg CFC-11 eq)
Moderate Renewable Energy Use: Use of renewable primary resource energy (3.38E+00 MJ)
Low Hazardous Waste: Minimal hazardous waste produced (3.15E-03 kg)
Durable Packaging: Packaging includes wooden crates (pine boards and MDF), which are more sustainable than plastic alternatives

CONs

High Non-Renewable Energy Use: Significant use of non-renewable primary resource energy (4.49E+01 MJ)
End-of-Life Landfill: Panels go 100% to landfill at end-of-life, with no recycling or recovery options
Material Composition: Contains fiberglass (64.59%), adhesives (8.96%), and resins, which are not environmentally friendly and complicate recycling

PROs

Reusability and Recycling Efforts: USG has a take-back recycling program for tiles in good condition, reducing landfill waste
Low VOC: Very low VOC emissions during use contributing to better indoor air quality
Low Ozone Depletion Potential: Extremely low ozone depletion potential (4.34E-10 kg CFC 11 eq)
Low Eutrophication Potential: Very low eutrophication potential (1.76E-04 kg N eq)
Renewable Energy Use: Use of renewable primary resource energy (3.54E+00 MJ)

CONs

Sensitivity to Environmental Conditions: Tiles must be protected from moisture, high humidity, and high temperatures to ensure reusability
Material Composition: Contains 11.8% coatings, which may complicate recycling or contribute to environmental impacts during production
Waste: Moderate non-hazardous waste produced (5.75E-02 kg)

Home

Page updated

Report abuse