# Blockchain Based Delay and Energy Harvest Aware Healthcare Monitoring System in WBAN Environment
## 5 Experimental Results and Discussion
### Security & Efficiency Analysis
#### 5.3.1 Fault Data Elimination Check  
The proposed B-DEAH incorporates a fault data elimination check because the IoT-based WBAN environment produces fault measurements, which are very high; therefore, it is avoided using _RDF_. Earlier works concentrated on packet transmission and energy consumption. The B-DEAH architecture determines the similarity between two or more histories of old packets in the database. B-DEAH considers all packet header information. The performance of the fault data elimination check is evaluated for B-DEAH and E-HARP. From the analysis, it is confirmed that fault data packets are removed. Table 6 shows that B-DEAH attains the performance of the fault data elimination check. Table 7 shows the overall comparison of proposed and existing works.  
However, some intended packets are not determining the fault data in earlier works. This mitigation aids in effective data aggregation and classification for minimizing the end-to-end delay and energy consumption.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Number of BAN**}} & **Fault Data Elimination Check (\%)** & \\ \cline{2-3}  & **B-DEAH** & **E-HARP** \\ \hline
1 & 97.6 & 80 \\
2 & 98.6 & 81.5 \\
3 & 99.3 & 82.5 \\
4 & 99.6 & 83.6 \\
5 & 99.8 & 85 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Fault data elimination check.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Performance Metrics**}} & & **CF-EHARP** & **PCA** & **E-Harp** & **B-DEAH** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Throughput (Kbps)} & Emergency Packets & 20.8 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 22.5 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 23.8 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 42.5 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Periodic Packets & 20.08 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 22 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 23.11 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 41.75 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{End-to-end delay (s)} & Emergency Packets & 0.042 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 0.039 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 0.031 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 0.028 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Periodic Packets & 0.06 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 0.052 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 0.041 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 0.036 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Packet loss rate (\%)} & Number of rounds & 5.18 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 2.81 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 9.83 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 1.1 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{3}{*}{Simulation Rounds} & Emergency Packets & 0.03 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 0.026 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 0.03 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 0.044 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Periodic Packets & 7.55 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 5.6 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 5.68 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 0.039 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{3}{*}{Simulation time} & Emergency Packets & 7.51 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 5.53 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 5.6 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 8.53 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Periodic Packets & 57.3 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 70.83 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 53.33 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 8.35 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Success rate (\%)} & Emergency Packets & 57.33 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 70.83 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 53.33 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 87.5 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Periodic Packets & 57.33 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 70.83 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 53.33 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 87.83 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Reliability (\%)} & Packets per second & 57.83 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 70.83 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 53.5 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 87.83 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Overall comparison of proposed and existing works.