## 4 Discussion  
Following evaluation, the results can be compared and discussed with other studies found in the literature. To contextualise these results, thermal conductivity, apparent density, and flexural strength are compared. Thermal conductivity and apparent density are strongly linked, as can be seen in Figure 6.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Plaster (kg)** & **Water (kg)** & **Perlite (kg)** & **RGW (kg)** & **CO\({}_{2}\) (kg/m\({}^{3}\))** & \(\Delta\) of CO\({}_{2}\)** \\ \hline E-0.7 & 647.06 & 452.94 & - & - & 45.29 & - \\ E-07-P & 530.46 & 371.32 & 10.83 & - & 37.13 & \(-\)18\% \\ E-0.7-1 LU & 527.93 & 369.55 & - & 2.53 & 40.23 & \(-\)11\% \\ E-0.7-2L & 496.16 & 347.31 & - & 6.53 & 39.56 & \(-\)13\% \\ E-0.7-P-1 LU & 521.62 & 365.13 & 10.65 & 2.55 & 32.67 & \(-\)28\% \\ E-0.7-P-2L & 486.23 & 340.36 & 9.92 & 6.53 & 30.49 & \(-\)33\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Embodied carbon analysis and potential savings.  
This chart demarcates three key regions based on potential material suitability. The red zone encompasses values exceeding the established maximum as dictated by EN 14246 [45]. The red dashed line represents the limiting values. The black dashed line implies the E-0.7 reference point. The blue area encompasses materials with values that are within the standard range but exceed the E-0.7 reference, indicating a relative decline in one or both properties. Finally, the green zone highlights materials that could potentially enhance E-0.7 performance.  
Within this framework, the research data points were plotted and compared with the existing literature. As illustrated in Figure 6, the E-0.7-P-11U material does not satisfy the minimum apparent density-to-thermal conductivity ratio required for ceiling applications. While this does not necessarily negate its potential as a building material, its suitability for such applications warrants revaluation. Materials incorporating cellular glass [57] and microencapsulated phase change material (PCM) [52] exhibit a similar trend, suggesting a better fit for partition walls. Materials containing mineral wool [55] and plastic cable waste [56] exhibit a performance comparable to that of E-0.7, with slightly higher thermal conductivity. Natural additives like Typha angustifolia [51] and cork [53] result in a significant decrease in thermal conductivity; however, their apparent density surpasses the values obtained in this study. Chicken feathers [54] display a performance equivalent to that of E-0.7, offering no improvement in either property. Finally, the remaining natural additives, sheep wool [49] and groundnut and coir [50], exhibit similar apparent densities to those of the RGW and perlite composites evaluated here, but with inferior thermal conductivity values.  
Figure 7 shows the mechanical performance over apparent density values for both the current research samples and those in the literature.  
Figure 6: Comparison between the apparent density and thermal conductivity resulting values. [49]: Sheep wool; [50]: Groundnut and coir; [51]: Typha angustifolia; [52]: Microencapsulated PCM; [53]: Cork; [54]: Chicken feathers; [55]: Plastic cables; [56]: Mineral wool; [57]: Cellular glass. Own elaboration.  
The areas are again highlighted following the Figure 6 criteria. All the materials compared are over the minimum rate requirements of the standard. The closer and higher to the Y axis the point is, the better the material's performance. Again, the chicken feathers studied by [PERSON] et al. [54] performed worse than the rest of the materials analysed. Samples with perlite and RGW performed the best once again, with E-0.7-P-2L being the best sample of all those studied. The perlite addition significantly improves flexural strength, while the mineral wool studied by [PERSON] et al. [56] also attained better flexural strength performance. When compared with E-0.7-1 LU and E-0.7-2L, sheep wool and cellular glass performed similar to E-0.7-P-1 LU, although their apparent density was higher.