## 4 Performance Analysis
### Results and Discussion
The QoSRP uses a transmission phase-lock that is based on the previous history wake up or sleep activity information of the primary users and, therefore, the transmission node knows the receiver wake up phase. The node starts transmitting just before the receiver is expected to be awake. The channel switching happens shortly before the receiver is ready to receive the packets, thus the time taken in channel switching does not affect the packet reception in the network. The node goes back to sleep once the transmission has succeeded or reached the maximum number of retransmissions. In the next iteration, the node is reset and wakes up on its listening channel. The channel reset is done in these cases: (i) the queue buffer is empty, (ii) before sending the next packet from the queue buffer, and (iii) the last packet in the queue buffer has been sent. This reset is done to avoid any delay in packet reception that could happen when the node is awake. In load-balanced routing, the workload is evenly distributed in the network, which as a result, distributes the energy consumption across the nodes. The static channel-based studies, however, do not consider the appropriate energy or the battery level as the performance metric but instead use the node's workload value. Therefore, they perform poorly in load balancing in the network. This rate is found more in MERP and LRP compared to the QERP routing protocol. On the other hand, the QoSRP uses routing through the good neighborhood, which provides alternative routes instead of concentrating on a single good path to ensure that the workload is widely spread and no specific nodes are being used excessively. Figure 8: Throughput vs. number of acoustic nodes. Figure 9: Probability of missed detection vs. false alarms. The neighborhood metric uses the information regarding the quality of the surrounding neighborhood, which are the forwarding path value and the neighborhood influence on the node in making a decision based on the priority. If the current path becomes congested or unavailable, it switches to the alternative route, which is through a node closer to the destination to improve the overall throughput and data rates in the network. Thus, the next hop neighbor that is not selected as the forwarder becomes the alternative route if the current path is unavailable. The neighborhood metrics allow a set of forwarding routes to be used to enable network load distribution, which as a result, helps to improve the network load balancing and reduces the energy consumption, and latency. All the above factors lead to low latency in QoSRP compared to QERP, MERP and LRP routing schemes as shown in Figure 12. The overall delay performance in QoSRP routing protocol with 95% confidence intervals is recorded up to 700 ms. By contrast, the latency performance of QERP is observed well  
Figure 11: Packets error rate vs. number of acoustic nodes. Figure 10: Probability of false alarms vs. detection. around 800 ms compared to MERP and LRP recorded around 890 and 1000 ms in UWSNs. The low latency of QERP is due to it finding alternative routes in a robust manner. On the contrary, the latency performance of MERP is better due to it spending less time handling congestion issues in the packets forwarding process. The LRP scheme performs insignificant than all routing schemes due to spending a prominent time during routes finding process in the network. In sum, the proposed scheme is extremely for the underwater monitoring applications that requires high data rates, throughput with low latency, packet error rate and network energy-consumption performance.