As the remediation industry grows, there has been a parallel expansion of strategies and methods to address various challenges and specialized knowledge is needed to make the best decisions. First, one must consider the nature and extent of contamination to determine what protocols to apply at a site. One strategy, that is often recommended for moderately to severely impacted sites, is In-Situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO). As part of the expansion of strategies there are a several options to choose from. First, we need to identify the dominant criteria to get the most value for the “time and treasure” that is invested. Consequently, there are many features to consider in choosing an ISCO reagent and, while cost issues are primary, other factors come into account such as efficacy, safety and ease of use. In this regard, we will compare EN Rx Reagent to the other dominant ISCO product sodium persulfate. To begin, let us explain what EN Rx Reagent is for an effective comparison before looking at the comparative economics which are very favorable with this product. EN Rx Reagent is an inorganic additive that is added to hydrogen peroxide, with a cost advantage therein since it is a commodity chemical not subject to certain proprietary processes and higher costs. It is established that hydrogen peroxide is a historical standard for ISCO in the form of Fenton’s Reagent. In this process, the hydrogen peroxide is catalyzed, typically with iron, to generate powerful free radicals that are the currency of contaminant destruction. The problem with this, however, is the reaction has a violent exotherm. This may not seem be a problem if the reagent is successfully injected into the subsurface – but that is not the whole picture. While the tempest is hidden below the surface, it has the capacity to generate levels of heat and pressure that desorb contaminants and makes the situation worse for an indeterminate period of time. While it seems counterintuitive, EN Rx Reagent is actually a catalyzed hydrogen peroxide that is simultaneously activated and stabilized such that it literally forms a slow release hydrogen peroxide-based generation of the desired free radicals. This creates a treatment longevity profile of several months which considerably longer than other quasi-stabilized hydrogen peroxide additives. To be more specific, claims for those other Fenton’s-based products are on the order of one to two weeks. It gets better. The inorganic component is added in relatively low doses, on the order of 2.5% by weight to 35% hydrogen peroxide. This simple action suppresses the normally violent exotherm and keeps the solution in the range of 70 to 80 degrees Fahrenheit – yes Fahrenheit. What this means is that this form of activated hydrogen peroxide can be handled with impunity above ground and then injected into the subsurface. The alternative is to mobilize the injection of hydrogen peroxide in the field, then chase with iron and then more hydrogen peroxide and on it goes. This involves more equipment and field time and gives EN Rx Reagent and operational advantage over and above the inherent efficiencies grounded in comparative chemistry – which we will now examine next. As an additional note, one would not deploy 35% hydrogen peroxide to the subsurface directly, but rather safely dilute it on the order of 10X which is in line with established protocols (between 4% and 12% final concentration). This is therefore an ideal application for the EN Rx Support Platform or SP Unit (please see details on the Website) that can draw up the mixture, effect the dilution and pump it out to the subsurface without extensive field manipulations.