### Duty Cycle  
Nevertheless, Wi-Fi signals are transmitted in bursts with high Crest Factor (CF), making real-world exposure assessment challenging. Conventional methods use spectrum analyzers (SA) in max-hold mode with Root Mean Square (RMS) detectors to measure peak power density (\(S_{max}\)) or field strength (\(E_{max}\)). These methods capture worst-case exposure but fail to reflect typical Wi-Fi transmission. Consequently, such methods tend to overestimate EMF exposure levels and are unsuitable for informing appropriate safety policies. To address this, duty cycle (DC) [8] is introduced as a calibration factor, defined as the ratio of active signal duration (\(T_{active}\)) to total observation time (\(T_{total}\)) [8; 9]:  
\[DC=\frac{T_{active}}{T_{total}}\times 100\ (\%)\,. \tag{1}\]  
This time -domain metric can be measured using the zero-span mode of the SA [8]. The average RMS electric-field strength (E-field) \(E_{agg}\) of the Wi-Fi signal can then be calculated as the product of \(E_{max}\) and the square root of DC [8; 9]:  
\[E_{agg}=\sqrt{DC}\cdot E_{max}\ (\mathrm{V}\,\mathrm{m}^{-1})\,. \tag{2}\]  
This approach integrates peak transmission with active duration, yielding a more realistic EMF exposure estimate. Several studies have examined Wi-Fi DC and its impact on EMF exposure. [PERSON] et al. [8] investigated IEEE 802.11b/g signals, focusing on the optimization of SA parameter settings for DC and exposure measurement, including resolution bandwidth (RBW) and sweep time (SWT). The optimal SA parameters were used by them to measure Wi-Fi exposure levels and DC in a laboratory context, and the results after DC weighting were verified for compliance with the guidelines. [PERSON] et al. [10] measured the DC of Wi-Fi (802.11a/b/g/n) access points (APs) and laptops in six schools, finding DC ranges of 0.02-0.91% and 1.0-11.7%, respectively, which were combined with numerical dosimetry results to evaluate compliance. The authors of [11] monitored the 24 h DC variability in schools and residences, while [PERSON] et al. [12] conducted a comprehensive study across 178 locations, including rural, residential, urban, suburban, office, and industrial settings. They also calculated the theoretical maximum Wi-Fi (802.11a/g) DC under Carrier-Sense Multiple Access/Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA) mode [9], and the authors measured the DC for different network applications, revealing that different network applications significantly impact the DC, e.g., file transfer had a DC of around 60%, while Skype voice calls with low traffic exhibited a DC of only 1%. They concluded that assuming a DC of 100% could overestimate Wi-Fi exposure by up to eight-fold, highlighting the crucial role of DC in accurate EMF exposure assessments. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. [13] analyzed the theoretical maximum DC during busy periods, finding values ranging from 49.55% at 54 Mbps to 98.10% at 1 Mbps. [PERSON] et al. [14] extended [PERSON] et al. 's work by measuring DC across different radio conditions (good, moderate, and bad) for various internet services on 802.11a/g networks, reporting a DC range of 0.21-74%. Together, these studies highlight the variability of DC and its critical importance in accurately estimating realistic Wi-Fi exposure. Previous studies, covering theoretical, laboratory, and real-world WLAN DC measurements, highlight the importance of DC in assessing Wi-Fi network exposure. However, as Wi-Fi 6 expands and Wi-Fi 7 emerges, previous studies become less relevant. While some studies have investigated Wi-Fi 5 and 6 exposure levels, such as [15; 16], which evaluated Wi-Fi 5 exposure at user devices and analyzed the impact of modulation schemes on exposure, and [PERSON] et al. [17], which examined Wi-Fi 6 exposure from smartphones and APs, while the authors showed that DC and power density are proportional to data rate, they did not measure DC in realistic scenarios. [PERSON] et al.