\chapter{Routing Protocols Comparison}       \label{Appendix:C}
%\lhead{ \emph{}}

A relative comparison of existing routing protocols for WSNs are presented in chronological order, highlighting their features and limitations for a ready reference in Table~\ref{tab2.1}:

%\begin{table}[H]
%\scalebox{0.85}{%
\begin{center}
\scriptsize
\begin{longtable}{l|c|l|l|l}
\caption{Comparison of existing routing protocols in WSNs}\label{tab2.1} \\
  \hline
   \bf Protocol & \bf Category & \bf Mechanism & \bf Features & \bf Limitations   \\
   \hline
   F\&G  & Classical & Flat & Simplicity of use & Traffic Overhead  \\
   \hline
   DD  & Classical & Data-Centric & Scalability & High Overhead  \\
   \hline
   GBR & Classical & Flat & High Scalability & Low PDR    \\
   \hline
   GEAR & Classical & Location-Based & Scalability & High Latency    \\
   \hline
   RR  & Classical & Flat & High Scalability & Low Throughput   \\
   \hline
   CADR  & Classical & Flat & High Scalability & High Overhead \\
   \hline
   LEACH  & Classical & Hierarchical & Energy-efficient & High Overhead   \\
   \hline
   SPIN  & Classical & Data-Centric & High Scalability & High Overhead  \\
   \hline
   SPEED  & Classical & QoS & Energy-efficient & Low Adaptability \\
   \hline
    SAR  & Classical & QoS & Multi-path & High Overhead  \\
    \hline
   HEED & Classical & Hierarchical & Energy-efficient & High Latency   \\
   \hline
    AntChain & CI Based & Location-Based & Energy-efficient & Less robust   \\
   \hline
   EAQSR  & Classical & QoS & Low Latency & Low PDR  \\
    \hline
   EEABR & CI Based & QoS & High Throughput & Proactive Nature  \\
    \hline
   PEACH  & Classical & Hierarchical & Load Balancing & High Latency  \\
   \hline
   \hline
   \bf Protocol & \bf Category & \bf Mechanism & \bf Features & \bf Limitations   \\
   \hline
   SDG & CI Based & Hierarchical & Fast Convergence & Low Coverage  \\
   \hline
   EEMC  & Classical & Hierarchical & Minimum Overhead & High Latency \\
   \hline
   ASAR & CI Based & QoS & Better PDR & Less Efficiency  \\
   \hline
   EEHC  & Classical & Hierarchical & Node Heterogeneity  & Low PDR  \\
   \hline
   EBAB & CI Based & Hierarchical & High PDR & Clustering Overhead  \\
   \hline
   MRP  & CI Based & Hierarchical & Prolong Network Lifetime  & Need Parameters Adjustment   \\
   \hline
   ACO-C & CI Based & Hierarchical & Better PDR  & Network Overhead   \\
   \hline
   EECF  & Classical & Hierarchical & Prolong Network Lifetime  & Low Transmission Range   \\
   \hline
   AntSensNet & CI Based & QoS & Low Energy Consumption  & High Latency   \\
   \hline
   MBC   & Classical & Hierarchical & High Node Mobility & High Communication Cost   \\
   \hline
   UCFIA & CI Based & Hierarchical & Prolong Network Lifetime & Need Parameters Adjustment   \\
   \hline
   DEECIC & Classical & Hierarchical & Better Network Coverage  & Low Scalability   \\
   \hline
   ERP  & CI Based & Hierarchical & Better Network Lifetime  & Non-cluster Based Approach  \\
   \hline
   BeeSensor  & CI Based & Flat & Low Processing Cost & Non-cluster Based Approach\\
   \hline
   EEFTMR & Classical & Flat & Fault Tolerant & Non-cluster Based Approach\\
   \hline
   HSACP  & CI Based & Hierarchical & Fast Convergence & No Load Balancing\\
   \hline
   PSO  & CI Based & Hierarchical & Better PDR  & High Overhead  \\
    \hline
   ECPSOA   & CI Based & Flat & High Robustness  & Computationally Complex  \\
   \hline
   SIF  & CI Based & Hierarchical  & Energy-aware & Fuzzy Based Routing \\
   \hline
\end{longtable}
\end{center}
%\end{table}

