The installation of new equipment (Base Stations, BSs) during the planning phase of a cellular network (including 5G BSs) is governed by exposure limits in terms of allowable ElectroMagnetic Field (EMF) levels. The exposure limits can be either defined by (i) international bodies (e.g., ICNIRP) or (ii) national regulations imposing limits stricter than (i). In this work, we compare the impact of ICNIRP vs. stricter-than-ICNIRP exposure regulations on the Quality of Service (QoS) and EMF. To this aim, we perform a large-scale measurement campaign in one scenario in Spain subject to ICNIRP regulations and another one in Italy subject to EMF limits stricter than ICNIRP ones. Both the scenarios are characterized by similar exposure conditions, comparable user density, and common 4G performance targets by the operators. Results, obtained by measuring QoS and EMF at selected locations, reveal that the QoS in the scenario subject to strict EMF limits is heavily worsened compared to the one in which ICNIRP-based limits are enforced. Clearly, the scenario with strict EMF limits presents a lower level exposure over the territory compared to the one imposing ICNIRP limits.

在蜂窝网络（包括5G BS）的规划阶段中，新设备（基站，BS）的安装受电磁场（EMF）允许水平下的暴露极限控制。暴露限值可以由（i）国际机构（例如ICNIRP）定义，也可以由（ii）施加比（i）更严格的限值的国家法规来定义。在这项工作中，我们比较了ICNIRP和严格于ICNIRP的暴露规定对服务质量（QoS）和EMF的影响。为此，我们在一种情况下在西班牙进行了大规模测量活动，该情况受ICNIRP法规的约束，而在意大利的另一种情况则受到了比ICNIRP更为严格的EMF限制。两种情况的特征都在于相似的暴露条件，可比的用户密度以及运营商共同的4G性能目标。结果，通过在选定位置测量QoS和EMF获得的数据表明，与实施基于ICNIRP的限制相比，受到严格EMF限制的方案中的QoS严重恶化。显然，与实施ICNIRP限制的情况相比，具有严格的EMF限制的方案在整个地区的暴露程度较低。