### Uniqueness of Proposed Protocols from Existing Protocols  
In this paper, two routing protocols are proposed. However, they are different from the existing as follows:  
1. In EP-VIR-Three, the forwarder node is selected with a minimum number of neighbor nodes to avoid collision and interference (using 3-hop neighbor's information and cost function), whereas, in LMPC, the number of collisions are bit high.
2. In BF-SPF-Three, Bellman Ford algorithm is used for data routing with minimum EC. In addition, it solves the problem of routing loop problem. However, in LETR and LMPC, the EC is high due to certain DAs and collisions.
3. In LMPC, the binary tree generation starts from the source node. However, in the proposed protocol BF-SPR-Three, a binary tree is generated from the cross-node (node existing near the layers or coinciding with the layer). In this proposed protocol, the current forwarder first checks the 3-hop neighbor's information of the forwarder node to avoid a void hole problem and then forward the DP.
4. Above discussed strategies result in the reliability of data transmission with minimum EC and E2E delay than the existing state-of-the-art routing protocols.  
Abbreviations and acronyms for this paper are placed at the end of this paper, whereas, the rest of the paper is organized as follows: the problem statement of the proposed work is stated in Section 2. Detailed description of the existing protocols is given in Section 3. Section 4 presents the system model and description of the proposed protocols for deep understanding. Feasible regions using linear  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline \hline
**Categorization** & **Protocols** & **Achievements** & **Limitations** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Energy based} & \multirow{3}{*}{RE-PBR [8]} & An energy efficient multi-hop protocol with maximum PDR and data reliability & Dense Deployment of the network is challenge with high E2E delay \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{EBLE [10]} & A single-hop protocol to balance the traffic load for minimum EC with reliable data delivery and packet size management & EC due to delay and path loss due to continuous packet transmission is not focused \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Topology based} & \multirow{3}{*}{TCEB [9]} & A single-hop protocol with minimum EC and high PDR & Sparse region effect is ignored by the authors \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Void Node based} & \multirow{3}{*}{TORA [22]} & A multi-hop routing with minimum to end delay and void hole avoidance & Computational time is not focused \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \cline{2-4}  & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Summarized and Categorized Literature Review.  
programming are computed in Section 5. Simulation results and discussion are presented in Section 6. Finally, this study is concluded in Section 7 with future directions.