## 3 Magnetic and RF-EMF Measurement Results
### Statistical Analyses of Measurement Results  
In this study, Anderson-Darling goodness-of-fit tests were performed for normal, GEV, lognormal, t-location scale, Weibull, and loglogistic distributions to determine the best-fitting distributions for the measured B and RF-EMF levels. The evaluation results for B are given in Table 6, and the RF-EMF results are presented in Table 7. When evaluating the measurement results of the E1 and E4 bus routes at three locations, the \(p\)-values for the normal distribution exceed 0.05. Similarly, for the other five distributions, the \(p\)-values also exceed 0.05. Consequently, each distribution in the table can represent the B value. Considering the lowest critical value, it can be observed that for the E1 route, the normal distribution exhibits a similar or lower critical value compared to the other distributions. For the E4 route, the lognormal distribution for L1 demonstrates the lowest critical value (closely followed by GEV). For L2 and L3, the GEV distribution demonstrates the lowest critical value. When Table 6 is evaluated as a whole, it becomes evident that the GEV distribution, exhibiting the lowest or closely comparable critical values, is most suitable for expressing the B measurements.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Bus Route** & **Location** & **Parameters** & **Normal** & **GEV** & **Lognormal** & **T-Location Scale** & **Weibull** & **Loglogistic** \\ \hline E1 & L1 & \(p\)-value & 0.9866 & 0.9795 & 0.9782 & 0.9773 & 0.9654 & 0.9557 \\ \hline E1 & L1 & critical value & 0.2129 & 0.2312 & 0.2339 & 0.2360 & 0.2587 & 0.2744 \\ \hline E1 & L2 & \(p\)-value & 0.1901 & 0.7681 & 0.4655 & 0.3368 & 0.1989 & 0.5715 \\ \hline E1 & L2 & critical value & 1.4454 & 0.4772 & 0.8195 & 1.0384 & 1.4121 & 0.6826 \\ \hline E1 & L3 & \(p\)-value & 0.8536 & 0.8391 & 0.8659 & 0.8339 & 0.8123 & 0.7943 \\ \hline E1 & L3 & critical value & 0.3935 & 0.4081 & 0.3810 & 0.4131 & 0.4343 & 0.4518 \\ \hline E4 & L1 & \(p\)-value & 0.9331 & 0.9519 & 0.9622 & 0.9245 & 0.7825 & 0.9269 \\ \hline E4 & L1 & critical value & 0.3057 & 0.2801 & 0.2640 & 0.3164 & 0.4633 & 0.3135 \\ \hline E4 & L2 & \(p\)-value & 0.0724 & 0.9840 & 0.5373 & 0.8608 & 0.0931 & 0.9478 \\ \hline E4 & L3 & \(p\)-value & 0.0749 & 0.9852 & 0.2527 & 0.4192 & 0.0767 & 0.5283 \\ \hline E4 & L3 & critical value & 2.1694 & 0.2167 & 1.2390 & 0.8897 & 2.1503 & 0.7352 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Distribution test evaluations for B measurements.  
Figure 22: While the electric bus is charging, B values are taken from (**a**) 30 locations outside the bus and (**b**) 15 locations inside the bus.  
In the RF-EMF measurements, the \(p\)-value for the normal distribution at the L3 position in the attachment line is below 0.05. In contrast, the \(p\)-value exceeds 0.05 for all other conditions and distributions. Regarding the E1 route, the lowest critical value was observed for Weibull at L1, Weibull at L2, and loglogistic at L3. Conversely, for the E4 route, the lowest critical value was consistently observed for GEV across all three locations. Upon evaluating the RF-EMF measurements collectively, it is inferred that the GEV distribution, exhibiting the lowest critical value, can effectively express the RF-EMF for evaluations concerning critical values.