## 3 Results and Discussion
### Photovoltaic Module  
The PV module is a passive component and has therefore received little attention in the past in connection with EMEs. Figure 6 shows the comparison of a monofacial module (MO) left column (Figure 6a,c) and bifacial module (BI) right column (Figure 6b,d). The left column in Figure 6a,c shows the MO_SE system (Figure 6a) and MO_K system (Figure 6c) presented in Figure 4 and sets them in comparison to the right column of Figure 6b,d with the BI_SE system upper row (Figure 6b) and BI_K system lower row (Figure 6d).  
The installation details were kept the same for all presented systems: small-loop area behind the photovoltaic array (SLS), with functional equipotential earthing (W), zero distance between the string cables DC+ and DC\(-\) (R). These installation details were selected for the comparison of PV modules since they, according to theory [23], have the lowest impact on the emissions.  
The BI_SE system, Figure 6b, has 225 peaks above the highest background and 35 peaks above the EMC limit. The BI_K system, Figure 6d, has 54 peaks above the highest background and 27 peaks above the EMC limit. Both systems with BI modules have a visible increase in peaks above the highest background in the frequency range 6-15 MHz when compared to systems with MO modules. In the same frequency range, more peaks also exceed the EMC limit.  
In summary, all BI_x_yz system combinations showed a visible increase in peaks above the highest background and above the EMC limit, in comparison to the MO_x_yz system combinations. Figure 7 summarizes peaks above the highest background (orange) and peaks above the EMC limit (blue) for each system combination, with the help of two boxplots. The BI_SE_SLS_W system shown in Figure 6b represents the minimum of all BI_SE_yz system combinations in Figure 7 (marked with a blue circle), while the maximum for BI_SE_yz is 335 peaks above the highest background and 71 peaks above the EMClimit. All BL_x_yz system combinations have a visible increase in peaks above the highest background in the frequency range 6-15 MHz, in comparison to the MO_x_yz systems. In the same frequency range, more peaks are located above the EMC limit. Therefore, the earlier-mentioned 200 kHz pattern is visible in a broader frequency range for BL_SE_yz system combinations.  
The results indicate that bifacial glass-glass modules lead to a significant increase in the EMEs in the PV system. However, the measurements cannot show if the absence of the aluminum frame, the difference in encapsulation, or the difference in wiring between half-cut versus full-cell modules causes the deterioration. Further measurements are needed to prove if BI glass-glass modules also increase emissions outside the measured frequency range of 150 kHz to 30 MHz.  
The results indicate that the solar inverter as well as the photovoltaic module can result in elevated levels of radiated electromagnetic emissions in photovoltaic systems.  
Figure 6: A comparison of monofacial monocrystalline half-cell module with an aluminum frame (MO) (**a**,**c**) and with monocrystalline bifacial full-cell module with glass–glass encapsulation (BI) (**b**,**d**). Both BI systems have a visible increase in peaks above the highest background in the frequency range 6–15 MHz when compared to systems with MO modules.  
However, the possible cause of the observed impact from different components on the emissions is beyond the scope of this article. Further studies are needed to address the root cause of emissions in photovoltaic systems caused by their different components. Further work is also needed for the impact of different components on emission levels in other frequency ranges, such as 30 MHz to 1 GHz.