## 3 Results and Discussion  
The performance of proposed methodology is compared and analyzed with other methods such as MFO, SSO, Fuzzy-PSO, and LEACH. The parameters such as energy consumption, throughput, end-to-end delay, latency, network lifetime, and PDR are estimated with some simulated parameters tabulated in Table 2.  
(ii) Throughput (Mbps)  
Throughout measurement is computed to estimate the amount of data transferred to the base station via various nodes and is given by Equation (18). \[Throughput=\frac{Number\ of\ Packet\ sent*packet\ size}{Time\ taken} \tag{18}\]  
The proposed approach indicates that throughput of about 0.97 Mbps is achieved, which is the highest among the considered protocols even when the number of nodes increases. The MFO obtains a slightly similar range of throughput for all the nodes. Thus, the hybrid approach confirms that the data transmission can be achieved with less energy and high throughput. The obtained throughput for the proposed work and its comparison with other protocols is tabulated in Table 4 for different nodes, and it is figured out in Figure 4.  
(iii) End-to-end delay  
The end-to-end delay is calculated to estimate the time duration utilized for data transmission from the sensor node to the sink node and it is represented as  
\[\text{End to end delay}=\text{Time required for data transmission}+\text{time required for data processing} \tag{19}\]  
The proposed work yields a good result with minimum delay when compared with previous similar protocols. When the node size increases, the delay value increases due to the larger transmission distance. Table 5 and Figure 5 provide the outcomes with the details that the delay ranges from 3 s to 8 s for the proposed algorithm, which is the least value for all particular node when compared with other methods. The SSO and Fuzzy-PSO show nearly the range of observation for 200 and 300 nodes. The highest end to-end delay was observed for LEACH. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Number of Nodes** & **Proposed Method** & **MFO** & **SSO** & **Fuzzy-PSO** & **LEACH** \\ \hline
100 & 0.975921 & 0.962033 & 0.927321 & 0.901537 & 0.879736 \\
200 & 0.967780 & 0.947245 & 0.906462 & 0.879131 & 0.859863 \\
300 & 0.961233 & 0.931253 & 0.891598 & 0.867812 & 0.839068 \\
400 & 0.955117 & 0.927517 & 0.871758 & 0.845910 & 0.826147 \\
500 & 0.945241 & 0.916425 & 0.856928 & 0.833919 & 0.819231 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparison of throughput with various routing protocols. Figure 4: Analysis of throughput vs. number of nodes. _(iv) Latency_  
Latency is time required to transmit data in a network between the source and SN. It is also used to estimate round-trip time and the comparison of the obtained latency value is plotted in Figure 6 and tabulated in Table 6. Figure 6 shows that latency value ranges between 3 to 5 s, which is found to be the lowest when compared with other protocols. The LEACH method shows the highest latency value even for a fewer number of nodes. The Fuzzy-PSO shows some marginal differences. Here, the proposed routing approach achieved latency of 0.712 s, 2.23 s, 3.91 s, and 5.19 s in comparison to MFO, SSO, Fuzzy-PSO, and LEACH, respectively for 100 nodes. The highest latency difference of about 7.03 s is obtained for 500 nodes. (v) Packet delivery ratio  
It is defined as the ratio between numbers of a packet transmitted successfully with a diverse number of SNs to BS and it is equated as  
\[Packet\ delivery\ ratio=\frac{Total\ no.\ of\ packets\ received}{Total\ no.\ of\ packets\ sent}\times 100\% \tag{20}\]  
The ratios of packet delivery for different nodes are represented in Figure 7 and Table 7. The hybrid achieved up to 97.7% and 96.12%of PDR with 100 and 500 nodes, respectively. The highest packet delivery ratio is achieved by the proposed approach. (vi) Network lifetime  
It is used to estimate the amount of time required for transmission of a packet from sender to BS in the WSN. This will provide the approximate computation of SNs that die in the network.