## 6 Performance Analysis
Comparatively, the better throughput performance of ELR-W than CRPBA is because it forwards all types of data on a priority basis without blocking the transmission of other biosensors in a life-critical situation of the patient. The energy consumption of a node is defined as the sum of energy consumed in various activities, such as observing vital signs and receiving and transmitting packets in BASNs. The continuous packet transmission of vital signs consumes a high level of energy for the biosensors and, therefore, must be minimized in order to increase the lifespan of BASNs. Figure 6 illustrates that, in terms of low energy consumption, SARP outperformed the CRPBA and ELR protocols and completed almost 3500 rounds with different data traffic loads in BASNs. With more details, in initial rounds around 500, the residual energy profile of the SARP protocol was recorded around 97.4%, compared to ELR-W and CRPBA protocols, which were observed up to 96.8% and 96.6%, respectively. However, as time passed and the number of rounds increased between 2000 and 2300, the low-energy consumption performance of SARP significantly improved and recorded around 59.7% in BASNs. In contrast, the low-energy consumption profiles of both ELR-W and CRPBA protocols were observed around 55.7% and 55.1%, respectively. Figure 4: Packet error rate vs node density. Figure 5: Throughput vs node density. The low-energy consumption profile of ELR-W was found to be significantly better than the CRPBA protocol in WBASNs. Finally, the energy consumption profiles of SARP, ELR-W, and CRPBA protocols were recorded around 1.85%, 0.5%, and 0.3% for round numbers of 3500, 3300, and 3200, respectively. SARP achieved the best low-energy consumption profile because it exchanged the lowest number of control packets in the network. SARP periodically maintained and updated its neighbors and routing tables by exploiting the data packets; thus, no extra control packets are required, and data paths are always up to date. In addition, during a route recovery process, it used the least amount of control message overhead to search for an appropriate next-hop packet forwarder, which significantly saved node energy. Moreover, by assigning alternate paths, it significantly reduced the hotspot problems and balanced the traffic load and residual energy of the cluster heads in BASNs. On the other hand, the low-energy consumption profile of CRPBA was found to be much higher than ELR-W, but its performance gradually declined when more biosensors transmitted packets in increasing numbers of rounds. The main problem of high energy consumption in CRPBA is to re-establish the routes and re-transmit the dropped/delayed packets. Therefore, because of an increased number of packet re-transmissions, the nodes in CRPBA were not able to go into sleep mode in order to save energy. On the contrary, the main issue of high energy consumption in ELR-W is that control message overheads occurred when the data packets did not reach the destination, because of relay note failure, but the relay nodes re-transmitted the packets and kept updating the routes in BASNs. Thus, it consumed a notable sum of node energy; however, it performed better than the CRPBA routing protocol in BASNs. In sum, compared to all other schemes, the proposed scheme provides an energy-efficient and quality-aware delivery of emergency data to the physician in a life-critical situation of the patient.