Avenging effects of SPS and H2O2. Results obtained from radical scavenger test showed that OHhad only an initiator part, and had not a dominant part and order reaction in each of systems was in initial order. Also, the microwave degradation is able to mineralize refractory compounds with no any toxic byproduct. The microwave degradation has numerous benefits for example comfort, safety, economy and high efficiency. Accordingly these approaches, particularly WM/SPS, have a improved prospect in future for removal of other chlorinated organic compounds for instance Aldrin, Dieldrin and Lindane, in alkaline pH.Abbreviations PCP: Pentachlorophenol; AOPs: Sophisticated oxidation processes; TBA: Tert- butyl alcohol; COD: Chemical oxygen demand; SPS: Sodium Persulfate; H2O2: Hydrogen Peroxide; MW: Microwave; K: Reaction continual. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests.Results abstained from COD removal showed that MW/ SPS and MW/H2O2 were able to remove COD in amount of 94 and 83 respectively (Figure 7). Intermediates detected by means of HPLC were CO2 and HCL (Eq. 23). In thisAsgari et al. Journal of Environmental Well being Science Engineering 2014, 12:94 http://www.ijehse/content/12/1/Page 7 ofAuthors’ contributions All authors studied and approved the final manuscript.Acknowledgements The authors would prefer to thank Hamadan University of Medical Sciences for technical and financial assistance of this operate (9010274023). Author facts 1 Social Determinants of Wellness Research Center (SDHRC), Department of Environmental Wellness Engineering, School of Public Well being, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran. 2Social Determinants of Health Study Center (SDHRC), Department of Environmental Health Engineering, Gonabad University of Medical Sciences, Gonabad, Iran. Received: 21 November 2013 Accepted: five May possibly 2014 Published: 11 JuneReferences 1. Navarro AE, Cuizano NA, Lazo JC, Sun-Kou MR, Llanos BP: Comparative study of your removal of phenolic compounds by biological and non-biological adsorbents. J Hazard Mater 2009, 164:1439446. two. Ewers U, Krause C, Schulz C, Wilhelm M: Reference values and human biological monitoring values for environmental tox-ins. Int Arch Occup Environ Overall health 1999, 72:25560. 3. Stehly GR, Hayton WL: Impact of pH on the accumulation ki-netics of pentachlorophenol in goldfish. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 1990, 19:46470. 4. Song Z: Effects of Pentachlorophenol on Galba pervia, Tubifex sinicus and Chironomus plumousus Larvae. Bull Environ Con-tam Toxicol 2007, 79:27882. five. Jorens PG J, Schepens PJC: Human pentachlorophenol poisoning. Hum Exp Toxi 1993, 12:47995. six. Asgari G, Seidmohammadi AM, Chavoshani A, Rahmani AR: Microwave/H2O2 Efficiency in Pentachlorophenol Removal from Aqueous Solutions.Oxyntomodulin Technical Information JRHS 2014, four:369.Tartrazine Description 7.PMID:24282960 Fisher B: Pentachlorophenol: toxicology and environmental fate. J Pestic Reform: A Publ Northwest Coalit Altern Pestic 1991, 11:1. eight. Remya N, Lin JG: Current status of microwave application in wastewater Treatment–a assessment. Chem Eng J 2011, 166:79713. 9. Hong J, Yuan N, Wang Y, Qi S: Effective degradation of Rho-damine B in microwave-H2O2 technique, at alkaline pH. Chem Eng J 2012, 191:36465. ten. Rodriguez M: Comparison of different sophisticated oxidation processes for phenol degradation. Water Res 2002, 36:1034042. 11. Movahedyan H, Seidmohammadi AM: Comparison of unique advanced oxidation method degradation P-cholorophenol in aqueous solutions. Iran J Environ Wellness 2009, 6:15360. 12. Lam SS, Cha.