## 4 Results and Discussion  
As a first step, we tested our SMS sensor to detect honey alteration by glucose's presence. In such a case, the experimental testing to validate the SMS sensor began with the sensor in its initial state, safely placed inside a container and exposed to the surrounding air. Subsequently, the sensor was completely immersed in a sample of 5% glucose with brand A honey, ensuring that the NC-MMF section was fully immersed. For each sample, spectral data of the resulting signal were captured using an optical spectrum analyzer (OSA). After each measurement, the sensor underwent a thorough cleaning procedure using vinegar and deionized water, followed by air drying. This ensured the reestablishment of identical initial conditions for each subsequent test. The same sequence of steps was repeated for the adulterated samples of brand B honey. The next stage of our sequence of experiments was to test our SMS framework for the detection of water content in honey. In this case, we used the set of honey samples adulterated with distilled water described in the previous section. This procedure replicates the moisture content in honey. The experimental tests were carried out in the same way as for the honey samples adulterated with glucose, that is, we started by placing the sensor in the initial condition (surrounded by air). The sensor was then immersed in the adulterated honey sample containing 20% distilled water, and the spectrum of the signal obtained was recorded using the OSA. After each measurement, the sensor was cleaned with vinegar and deionized water and air-dried to ensure identical initial conditions for each test. This process was repeated for each adulterated honey sample, from 20% to 0% adulteration, for brand A and B honey. Variations in the refractive index (RI) of the medium surrounding the NC-MMF section modify the interference conditions, resulting in a spectral shift. Figure 2(a) displays the spectral response when the SMS sensor is immersed in the brand A honey samples adulterated with glucose. The same spectral response was observed for honey from brand B. Similarly, Figure 2(b) shows the spectral response of the SMS sensor for all samples of honey from brand A adulterated with water (simulating moisture content in honey) at concentrations ranging from 20% to 0% in 5% increments. The spectrum of the sensor in its initial condition (in air) is also included as a comparative reference. The same spectral response was obtained for honey from brand B. It is important to note that the spectral shift differs for samples adulterated with glucose and water. This behavior is due to the refractive index of glucose being higher than water. Therefore, when honey is mixed with water, the wavelength shifts are similar but of different magnitudes. To validate the sensor, the refractive index obtained from the refracometer (Hanna Instruments, Judetul Salaj, Romania, model HI96800) for all honey samples adulterated with both glucose and distilled water was used. Then, the spectral shift of the peak wavelength, \(\Delta\lambda\), was calculated as a function of the concentration of each adulterated honey sample. This shift was determined by measuring the difference between the peak wavelengths when the SMS structure was immersed in the sample and its position when measured in air. The negative spectral shift is proportional to the adulteration concentration level of the sample. This spectral shift was then compared with the refractive indices obtained from each sample recorded with the refracometer, as presented in Figure 4. Specifically, Figure 4a,b show the spectral shift for glucose-adulterated honey of brands A and B, respectively, compared to the refracometer measurements. Similarly, Figure 4c,d illustrate the spectral change for honey adulterated with distilled water, simulating moisture content, for brands A and B, respectively, compared to the refractive index obtained from the refracometer.