half-power angle in the vertical plane is 5.4 (q 5 624.0399). The height of the reception point is h 5 2.5 m. Measurements were conducted using a transmitter antenna tilt of 6 and 10 . The estimated slope of the street was 3.8 . The propagation environment is a canyon street and, therefore, the COST-WI model for free space properly represents the propagation environment (c 5 2.6). Considering the tilt of 10 , (1) gives X exp max 5 78 m and (5) states that the maximum location of exposure to electromagnetic fields should be found in the interval (64 m, 99 m). The measured maximum exposure location is at X 5 67 m, within the calculated region. Considering a tilt of 6 , X exp max 5 105 m and the region calculated using Eq. (5) is in the interval (82 m, 145 m). The measured maximum exposure location is at X 5 107 m.
CONCLUSIONThis letter proposes a method to calculate the region that contains the location of maximum exposure to RF EMF. In real environments, this point can be some dozens of meters far from the point estimated using (1). When evaluating the field strength at X exp max , if the measurements were close to the established limit, the location can be considered compliant, even if the radiocommunication station is not, once the field strength at other point may be higher than the limit. Thus, it is necessary to assess the field strength in the region R around X exp max and perform spatial averaging appropriately. The method proposed in this letter shows how to define this region. Results show that the proposed method is compatible with field measurements data. 2.