Talk:Permeable reactive barrier

Feedback

I saw a request for feedback at WP:FEED. Here are my recommendations.

Uncapitalize the section headings as is done here[1] (see "Page names that only differ by capitalization").
Replace "emerging" in the WP:LEAD with something more specific.
In the history section, instead of saying they were "removed" and it was a "success", can you please be specific as to what % was captured and what kind of "success" it was? With sources?
Do sources really call barriers which sequester contaminants PRBs (which would be a misnomer in my mind, but that would be the sources problem, not ours)?
Was the first application a reaction? If so what was the efficiency?
Is anything "entirely harmless". I doubt it. Try non-toxic or something else used in a reliable source please.
Split reactive processes and reactive materials into separate sections please.
That "many" (implying most) environmental pollutants are reduced needs sourcing. The historical case was oxidized.

I didn't get down the article all the way but that's all the time I have for now. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]