# Future Industrial Applications: Exploring LPWAN-Driven IoT Protocols
## 2 Literature Survey  
In this section, we provide a brief overview and synthesis of significant research, most of which is based on comparative analysis among the IoT physical layer protocols based on technology, application, and performance. In order to determine the optimal communication protocol, [PERSON] et al. [24] thoroughly studied the key protocols currently in use, conducted a comparative analysis, and then selected protocols based on the findings. According to their findings, LoRa is a more trustworthy option for a wireless protocol since it requires little complexity and expense. [PERSON] et al. [25] overviewed IoT communication protocols' visions, advantages and disadvantages, and additional QoS like energy consumption range and data rate to compare IoT communication protocols. [PERSON] et al. [23] evaluated several wireless technologies (LoRaWAN, NB-IoT, Sigfox, and LTE-M) to consider how they might be employed in fifth-generation (5G) communication technologies and wireless sensor networks. According to [PERSON] et al. 's [26] studies, throughput, message size, and packet loss were used to evaluate how the Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP), MQ Telemetry Transport (MQTT), and Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) behaved concerning speed and fault injection. According to tests, the researchers suggested that the CoAP protocol is an intriguing option for applications with limited network resources. A concentrated study by [PERSON] et al. [27] described the characteristics of the medium access control (MAC) layer for the low-power wide area network (LPWAN) options that are currently available, such as LoRa, Sigfox, and NB-IoT. The displaying of a thick organization for every one of these innovations was likewise canvassed in this review. The characteristics of various systems, such as carrier frequency, packet length, channel count, and spectrum access, were compared in this research contribution. The scientists made a model framework with NB-IoT gadgets, an IoT cloud stage, an application server, and a client application to show the benefits of NB-IoT when joined with other LPWA innovations in [28]. Researchers in [29] introduced a concise examination of the superior organization limit, gadget life span, and cost of LoRaWAN and Sigfox. NB-IoT, then again, performed better in terms of inactivity and administration quality. Moreover, they examined the different application situations and the innovation that is best in helping future scholarsand business experts. [PERSON] and others showed the numerous options that LoRaWAN geographies portray and demonstrated a wide range of situations considering the actual layer and zeroing in on the issue of organization security [30]. [PERSON] et al. [31] illustrated the features and drawbacks of the LoRaWAN protocol, which were explored when a strategy was taken to decide the use case of LoRaWAN technology; furthermore, in which use cases it does not function. In their review, [PERSON] et al. [32] analyzed and depicted the mechanical contrasts between LoRa and NB-IoT with respect to the actual qualities of network engineering. The examination was introduced as a near and engaging review. Although the model that [PERSON] et al. [33] provided is based on the physical layer, it does illustrate some intriguing insights into the decoding performance in LPWAN when there is packet collision. [PERSON] et al. analyzed the potential of RedCap, previously known as NR-Lite, in Enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB) and Ultra- Reliable Low Latency Communications (URLLC) use cases in contrast to NB-IoT and LTE-M which, are more suited for Massive Machine-Type Communications (mMTC) criteria. They compared the NR-based RedCap with the LTE-based NB-IoT and LTE-M from bandwidth, coverage, data rate, latency, reliability, and battery life points of view and focused on RedCap's appropriateness for Industry 4.0: wearables, video surveillance, and IIoT [34].