## 3 Results
### Wi-Fi 6 EMF Exposure Assessment  
Figure 11 presents the exposure levels measured in terms of E-field at the AP side, the UD side (laptop), and the center between them under bandwidths of 20 MHz, 40 MHz, 80 MHz, and 160 MHz. Figure 12 further compares the exposure levels of four different UDs under 80 MHz bandwidth. Across all bandwidths, the recorded maximum exposure levels (E\({}_{max}\)) in max-hold mode were weighted using the maximum average DC (DC\({}_{max}\)), minimum average DC (DC\({}_{min}\)), and video-call DC according to Equation (2). The results indicate that the EMF exposure levels at the AP side are significantly higher than those at the center and UD side, due to the greater EIRP power of the AP, with exposure increasing with bandwidth. E\({}_{max}\) rose from 2.3 V/m at 20 MHz to 11.8 V/m at 160 MHz. According to the ICNIRP guidelines, the exposure limit for the general public  
Figure 11: Measured exposure levels (weighted with different DC: DC\({}_{min}\), DC\({}_{max}\), video call, and DC = 100%) at the AP side, UD side, and the center location under varying bandwidths (20 MHz, 40 MHz, 80 MHz, and 160 MHz). Figure 10: Comparison of DC distributions for four UDs using different applications simultaneously (“All applications”) versus the same application (DC mean values are marked as green triangles). at this frequency range is defined as 10 W/m\({}^{2}\) or 61 V/m. The measured maximum exposure is 19% of the ICNIRP limit, but when weighted with DC\({}_{min}\), the exposure reduces to 1.1 V/m (1.8% of the ICNIRP limit), a reduction by nearly a factor of 10. Weighting by the DC for video calls results in an exposure level of 3.1 V/m (5.1% of the ICNIRP limit), and weighting by DC\({}_{max}\) results in 8.6 V/m (14.1% of the ICNIRP limit). However, at lower bandwidths, the higher DC\({}_{max}\) causes the weighted exposure level to remain close to E\({}_{max}\). For the center and UD side positions, the maximum E\({}_{max}\) values recorded were 2.5 V/m (4.1% of the ICNIRP limit) and 3.8 V/m (6.2% of the ICNIRP limit), respectively. When weighted by DC\({}_{min}\), the average exposure levels at these positions also decreased by approximately 10\(\times\), with the lowest level recorded being only 0.33% of the ICNIRP limit. For different types of UDs, including laptop, mobile phone, tablet, and UWiA, the results reveal significant variations in exposure levels. The UWiA exhibited the highest exposure, with an E\({}_{max}\) of 4.7 V/m (7.7% of the ICNIRP limit)--comparable to the AP's exposure level at the same bandwidth. This was followed by the laptop (2.6 V/m) and the tablet (2.3 V/m), both below 4.3% of the ICNIRP limit, while the mobile phone had the lowest exposure level, with an E\({}_{max}\) of 1.5 V/m (2.5% of the ICNIRP limit). These differences highlight the significant impact of antenna design and power configurations across devices on exposure levels. After weighting the exposure levels by the corresponding DC values, the average exposure for different UDs ranged between 0.23% and 6.6% of the ICNIRP limit. This is consistent with prior conclusions that assuming a 100% DC could result in an approximately ten-fold overestimation of exposure levels. Figure 13 illustrates the exposure levels measured under 80 MHz bandwidth in multi-user scenarios at various devices and locations, with the setup and layout shown in Figure 4. The analysis combines DC results for scenarios where four UDs simultaneously ran 4K video streaming, video calling, FTP downloading, and web browsing, as well as when the four UDs used all these applications simultaneously (denoted as \"All\" in the legend). E\({}_{max}\) still represents the exposure levels assuming a 100% DC. The results show that the AP and UWiA exhibited the highest and comparable exposure levels, with an E\({}_{max}\) of up to 4.6 V/m (7.5% of the ICNIRP limit).