“…Generally, it appears that the impacts of electrochromic materials are consistently low in comparison with other components in the architecture of electrochromic devices, while the impacts of the substrate may vary. For example, in the study by Syrrakou et al and Papaefthimiou et al, the substrate and electrode based on fluorine-doped tin oxide constitute 56.5% of the total embodied energy, while 24.5% share of the embodied energy was used in the manufacture of a propylene carbonate electrolyte. , Similarly, in Posset and Harsch, a PET substrate contributes to 43% of the total energy consumption, followed by the ITO electrode (33%), the fabrication process (10%) with the electrolyte (4%), and electrochromic materials (2%) having minor contributions . In our study, the impacts of the electrolyte are not significant (less than 1% in all the categories), the impacts of the electrode (for ACL) are prominent (around 20% of impacts related to silver ink), while the impacts of a substrate in our study appear to be lower.…”