Chicken Feathers are knowingly as a waste product of the poultry industry.

Large
amount of waste feathers produced and disposed each year by poultry processing
plants that results in severe solid waste problem. Chicken feathers have the potential for
building and construction material according to the research conducted by Dr.
Menandro Acda.

Chicken feathers when used as additive in manufacturing bagasse will likely contribute
great amount of improvement in the quality of a board. Chicken feathers are resistant to
insect infestation such as termites because they are inedible. It can make the board last
longer even with the presence of termites. Chicken feathers and bagasse are both
waste products, and when combined can produce boards with low-cost materials and
environmentally friendly. (http://www.propertywire.com/news/related-stories/chicken-
feather-house-ecobuilding-200808051424.html)

Nowadays, poultry farms are having trouble on how to get rid of thousands of pounds of
chicken feathers. Some poultry farms burn them while others just buried them to the
ground, but burning those chicken feathers causes environmental damage such as air
polution. Fortunately, researchers have discovered that chicken feathers can be useful
in some other ways. They found out that chicken feathers can be use as an additive in
producing fiber boards because it has the presence of keratin, a tough, insoluble protein
fiber that can be use in the production of fiber boards. Chicken feathers are an ideal
choice for the raw materials of fiber board since they are just waste products.
Manufacturers will find it easy looking for these materials since they are abundant and
there’s a guaranteed supply from the poultry farms. Chicken feathers are compose of
protein fiber called keratin that is also a main component of wool. The researchers
believe that the addition of chicken feathers to fiber boards can enhance its qualities
such as its compressibility, temperature-resistant and flammability without spending too
much and without causing harm to the environment.
In the Philippines, chicken feathers aren’t a publicly recognized problem. But,
experiments and researches for its reuse and degradation are being explored at
present. At University of the Philippines-Los Baños, scientist Menandro Acda has
ventured into recycling chicken feather into a low-cost building material. The scientist
quoted that, recycling it would be more advisable than burning it since the incineration
problem could cause environmental hazards. (Morales, 2008). Moreover, in the US
alone, 2 billion pounds of chicken feathers are produced by the poultry industry (Comis,
2008). Chicken feathers, by nature, are made up of over 90% protein (Cheng-cheng, et
al., 2008). And this protein is none other than keratin. It’s the most abundant protein. It
is not easily degraded due to its tightly packed structural arrangement which is in the
form of alpha keratin or beta keratin. The key to its stability lies on the cross-linking by
disulfide bonds, hydrophobic interactions, and hydrogen bonds. Such stability renders
keratin water-insolube and non-degradable by the enzymes papain, trypsin and pepsin.
(Gradisar et al., 2005).

Description of modern feathers was given by Norell and Xu, (2005). They classify
feathers in five main types: contour feathers, down feathers, semiplumes, filoplumes
and bristles. All of them have a common organization: a central hollow tube, called
calamus (at initial length) or rachis (over a certain distance), the second structures are
called barbs, these are branches joined to the rachis, and finally barbules, microscopic
self-organizing structures.

The contour feathers give the bird its rounded shape with soft characteristics and visual
coloring, and provide a first level of defense against physical objects, wind, sun and rain
(WILD BIRDS UNLIMITED NATURE, 2011). Down Feathers are smaller and lack the
beards, moreover, they are soft. These are the types of feathers that provide most of
the insulation from the external environment, being considered as excellent thermal
insulators (FERNBANK SCIENCE CENTER, 2011). The most common are the Contour
feather. The main function of Semi plumes is to support thermal insulation, since the
fluff serves to trap air between the feathers and the skin of the bird and besides it
provides shape and volume to the bird. Filo plumes feathers are very small and only
have some fluff on its tip. It is believed that the Filo plumes have a sensorial function,
causing the birds to maintain their feathers oriented and assist the birds to detect the
position of the feathers in flight (FERNBANK SCIENCE CENTER, 2011).

(a) Contour Feathers, (b) Dow Feathers (c) Semiplume (d) Filoplume

(e) Feather Structure

(FERNBANK SCIENCE CENTER, 2011)

According to Yang (2007) the structure and properties of barbs of chicken feathers
fibers make unique and preferred for many applications because the presence of hollow
structures similar to the honeycomb, its low density, high flexibility and structural
interaction can with other textile fibers is capable of providing unique properties and
different from any other natural or synthetic fibers.

According to Barone and Jones (2005, 1998), chicken feathers density is about 0.8
g/cm3 to 1.5 g/cm3 as compared to cellulose fibers and about 1.3 g/cm3 for wool. None
of natural or synthetic fibers commercially available today have a density as low as that
of chicken feathers. Besides having a unique structure, the barbs and therefore the
feathers are cheap, abundantly available and a renewable source of fiber proteins
(YANG, 2007).
According to Reddy and Yang (2007), the presence of honeycomb structures is the
main reason for the low density of barbs, also provides air and heat insulating
capabilities different to any other natural fiber. In fact, until 2007, none of the natural or
synthetic fibers commercially available have a density as low as that of chicken
feathers, around 0.8 g/cm3. On the other hand, also Martínez-Hernández et al, (2005a)
observed by SEM that central barbs are hollow and have an irregular, non-cylindrical
shape, which is detailed in figure 2(c). In this article Keratin fibers from chicken feathers
were characterized by transmission electron microscopy (TEM), the micrographs are
shown in figure 6, where microfibrils are immersed within the amorphous matrix,
identified by its dark color. Figures 6(a) and 6(b) show the twisted microfibrils forming a
helix that is related with the high mechanical strength from fiber. In figures 6(c) and 6(d)
the presence of two different structures inside the keratin fibers: microfibrils and
protofibrils, is confirmed. The first has a more order and crystalline structure than the
matrix, being this amorphous and with a high content of amino acid cystine. The
protofibrils are inside the microfibrils and are also surrounded by the matrix, as can be
appreciated in the figures 6(c) and 6(d).

All the components of feathers are constituted by keratin, but it is important notice that
there are differences in composition between feather and other avian keratins, for
instance the molecular weight of keratin for feather was measured as 10,500 g/mol,
whereas for claw or beak keratin was determined a higher value from 13,000 g/mol to
14,500 g/mol (Meyers et al, 2008). The next section of this chapter deals with keratin
composition, hierarchical organization of protein arrangement and certain properties
useful for practical applications.
Thermal behavior of keratin from feathers depends on chemical composition and
structural arrangement. Many applications for this material are restrained by this
performance. In spite of this, the studies regarding this aspect are few. Martínez-
Hernández et al, (2005a) presented thermal results, where single keratin fiber from
chicken feather was characterized by means of differential scanning calorimetry (DSC)
and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). The DSC results show an endothermic peak at
69°C, which implies the loss of “free water”; it coincides with the first mass loss in TGA,
a decrease of 5% in fiber mass from around 25°C to 55°C (figure 10(a)). In the same
article, the last DSC endothermic peak at 418°C was assigned to a decomposition
process, which also is reflected in TGA from 222°C to 392°C as a decreasing from 10%
to 78% in fiber mass. This decomposition is associated with disulphide bonds
destruction and elimination of H2S, also involves the denaturation of the helix structure
and the thermal pyrolysis of the chain linkages, peptide bridges and the skeletal
degradation. Several chemical reactions occur in this region where protein compounds
are decomposed to lighter products and volatile compounds such as H2S, CO2, H2O,
HCN (Popescu and Augustin, 1999). Recently, an interesting thermal study on keratin
was developed by Brebu and Spiridion, (2011). Their results show a comparison of the
thermal behavior of sheep wool, human hair and chicken feathers.

The different amino acids in keratin play an important role in several properties of
feathers; hydrophobic behavior is a clear example, but not the only one, since also
mechanical properties can be affected by the crosslinking between hydrogen bonds,
dipole attractions or S-S linkages due to cysteine. Another important contribution is the
self assembly hierarchical microstructure (Martínez-Hernández et al, 2003b). Thus, the
highly cross-linked structure gives feathers good mechanical properties. Recently, Zhan
and Wool, (2011), have studied the mechanical properties of the chicken feather barbs,
including the tensile properties and dynamical mechanical properties. These authors
observed that the stress-strain curve, shown in figure 13, began with an initial non-
Hookean, J-shaped curve, after a linear region is presented, followed by the yield point
and the break point. This mechanical behavior can be explained in terms of structural
changes, taking into account the assumptions of Martínez-Hernández et al, (2005b).
The linear region is due to changes in bond angles and bond spacing but without affect
the secondary configuration in the helical structure of the microfibrils. During the
continuous development of strain, the helical structure is unfolded due to realignment in
the hydrogen bonds in relation to keratin components; this causes a change in
secondary structure, which in wool and hair is called α-β transition (Hearle, 2000). In
this zone, the mechanical properties of fiber may be recovered if the fiber is released
before its rupture. However, in the vicinity of break point, the fiber loses its mechanical
properties and finally is broken due to hydrogen and disulphide bonds are disrupted,
thus denaturing the protein structure. Zhan and Wool, (2011) also show the effect of
diameter variance in chicken feather barbs through their length and from the barb
location on the feather, therefore causing a large discrepancy on tensile modulus
results. The authors conclude that the strain at break of chicken feather barb has a
mean value of 6.93%, the tensile modulus was 3.59 ± 1.09 GPa and average tensile
strength was 203 ± 74 MPa.

On the other hand, Reddy and Yang, (2007), measured the tensile properties of chicken
feather barbs. These were compared with turkey barbs and wool in table 2. As can be
observed in turkey barbs also the kind of feather plays an important role in the
mechanical properties, the difference probably is due to variance in diameter and
characteristics inherent to the feather function. Another interesting comparison in
mechanical properties of feathers was done by Cameron et al, (2003). These authors
studied the Young’s modulus of three species of bird: goose, swan and ostrich.

For each one three specific areas of the rachis were evaluated at 0, 50 and 75 % of
total rachis length from calamus to tip. Primary flight feathers were chosen for swan and
goose, whereas for ostrich were wing feathers. Their results are shown in figure 14,
where it is possible to observe that swan and goose rachis have an increase in Young’s
modulus along the rachis, nevertheless in ostrich rachis this behavior was not observed,
since a considerable increasing was not visible. It is interesting to observe that Young’s
modulus for rachis is higher than that for barbs. In turn, figure 15 (from Zhan and Wool,
2011) shows the storage modulus for chicken feather barbs, evaluated by Dynamical
Mechanical Analysis. This curve manifest a gradual decreasing as temperature
increases, but the values have significant deviations due to the heterogeneity of the
keratin protein structure and the geometrical irregularity of the barbs.

One way to take advantage of the feather keratin features described above is their use
as high structural reinforcements in polymer composites. Thus, between the different
bonds that stabilize the hierarchical structure in keratin fibers there are some
susceptible to be used as possible chemical reaction points and then have a chemical
interface. The stable thermal behavior of feather keratin, in which decomposition
process does not start before 200°C, allows establishing a possible range of
temperature for its use. In addition, morphological characterization through optical and
scanning electron microscopy show some interesting features, such as surface
roughness, flexibility, and high length to diameter ratio. It was found that feather keratin
fibers have an apparent diameter ranging from 4 to 8 μm with dispersion measured by
its standard deviation of 1.4 μm. The contact angle measurements support a
hydrophobic character in feather fibers, which suggest a good interface with polymers,
in contrast to cellulose hydrophilic nature that causes poor distribution in synthetic
polymers. Beside these features, mechanical properties are also very interesting
compared with those for cellulose natural fibers (shown in table 3). In spite of tensile
strength and elastic modulus are not very high, this last is comparable to cotton and
coir, these two natural fibers have also a higher value for elongation percentage, other
natural fibers are below; however chicken feather density (less than 1.0 g/cm3 ) is a
great advantage of chicken feather is its compared to cellulose fiber density. Taking into
account these characteristics, feather fibers are being successfully employed by
different authors to reinforce polymeric composites with some advantages over other
reinforcing materials such as plant (cellulose) and synthetic fibers. These advantages
include low cost, low density and the high specific properties mentioned above, together
with their biodegradable and nonabrasive nature. Besides these, feather fibers are
effectively a selfsustainable and continuously renewable source of fiber. Therefore
these fibers represent an alternative source for keratin, which could produce new and
strong engineering materials from non petrochemical origin. The proper utilization of
keratin fibers from chicken feather opens research possibilities in materials field and, at
the same time, contributes to diminish the squandering of natural resources.
Thus, keratin materials obtained from feathers as barbs, barbules and quill have been
incorporated to different polymer matrices in order to verify the potential application of
the diverse feather parts in the development of polymer composites and their features
related with the lightness, structural, mechanical and thermal properties. In addition,
acoustic and electrical properties have been studied in the keratin feather composites
due to the interesting sound absorption and insulated properties that these materials
possess. Therefore, this section focuses to present the researches related with the
synthesis and characterization of polymer matrices composites reinforced with different
feather parts. Next the mechanical, morphological, thermal, acoustic and electrical
properties of feather keratin polymer composites (FKPC) are reviewed.
In 2007, a small project supported by the Ford Conservation and Environmental Grants
provided the opportunity for the author to develop an affordable cement bonded
composite using waste chicken feathers for low cost housing projects in the Philippines.
Experimental variables used in the study included varying proportions and form of
chicken feather (fiber, ground or mixed), board configuration (homogenous or layered)
and amount of superplasticizer and coupling agent. After 2 years of intensive laboratory
study, the project developed a board (called Featherboard) from a blend of cement,
sand, chemical admixtures and waste chicken feathers. Results of the study showed
that the physical and mechanical properties (strength, stiffness, dimensional stability) of
the featherboard containing 5-10% fiber or ground feather compared favorably with
commercial fiber cement board in the market (e.g. Hardiflex®) with excellent decay and
termite resistance. Furthermore, the density and configuration (layered or homogenous)
of the board can be varied to suit various applications such as paneling, sidings and
insulation boards. The optimum proportions of feather in these boards maybe small at
first glance, however, considering that chicken feathers are fluffy and very light in
weight, the amount represents a relatively large amount of feather material equivalent to
about 10-15 times the volume of cement used.

Mechanical Properties

Based on test results using ASTM D 1037 (ASTM 1995), the stiffness (modulus of
elasticity, MOE) and flexural strength (modulus of rupture, MOR) of cement bonded
featherboards were directly affected by varying proportion of chicken feather used in the
formulation. Boards containing 5% to 10% fiber or ground feather were comparable in
stiffness (2.0-2.85 GPa) and flexural strength (7.8-9.2 MPa) to those reported for
coconut coir and wood-fiber reinforced cement composites (Campbell and Coutts 1980,
Coutts 1987, Eusebio et al. 1998, Li et al. 2006). In comparison with commercial wood-
fiber cement board (HardiLite®, James Hardie Philippines with MOE = 3.84 GPa, MOR
= 12.54 MPa) of similar thickness and density, featherboards containing 5% to 10%
showed slightly lower stiffness and flexural strength properties. However, the strength
values reported in this study were significantly higher compared to using neat cement
and feather only. It is possible that the use of silane coupling agent contributed to the
strength properties of cement bonded featherboards. Ordinarily, there is poor adhesion
between the organic feather and inorganic cement due to large differences in their
surface energies. This limitation can be overcome by the use silicon based coupling
agent with both organic and inorganic functional groups. Silane coupling agents have
two reactive groups (diamino and a trimethoxysilyl) capable of forming chemical bonds
with the feather fibers or particles and the surface of the cement matrix (Wituki 1993).
The coupling agent acts at the interface bridging two dissimilar materials to improve
adhesion (Figure 6). Silane coupling agents not only increase the bond strength of
coatings and adhesives but also their resistance to humidity and other adverse
environmental conditions (Wituki 1993). The use of only fiber or mixing fiber and ground
feather at levels used in our study seemed to have no significant effect on the MOE and
MOR of the boards at each proportion tested. Addition of feather fiber could potentially
improve fracture toughness by blocking crack propagation while ground feather could
reduce void space and irregularities (Frybort et al. 2008). We observed that adding
ground feather improved the surface texture of the boards but there was no
improvement in strength at any of the levels tested. Further research is now underway
to improve mechanical properties through modification of the original formulation or
improvements in the process of fabrication. Assessment from local housing contractors,
however, indicated that the strength of the boards is already acceptable for non
structural application in low cost housing projects in developing countries. Nailability
using 2.18 mm diameter concrete nails driven from various points 25 mm from the
edges of boards containing 5-20% feather fiber or ground feather showed no signs of
damage or cracks. This property is critical since conventional cement bonded boards
are notoriously brittle and cracks easily when nailed to support frames during installation
(Simatupang and Geimer1990). Featherboards at 5-20% feather loading can be nailed
to wooden supports without danger of cracking and can be used as paneling and ceiling
material. The fibrous nature of featherboard apparently would allow the passage of nails
and screws without formation of fracture.

Dimensional Stability

Dimensional stability is an important consideration when cement bonded boards are

used for paneling or ceiling material in the tropics. These boards often get wet during
heavy rains due to poor construction or leaky roof, and therefore minimal swelling or
water absorption that can cause sagging and collapse is desirable. In our study, water
absorption (WA) and thickness swelling (TS) after 24 hours of soaking in water (ASTM
1995) increased significantly as the amount of chicken feather was increased from 5%
to 20% (Figure 7). However, boards containing 5% to 10% feather fiber or mixed fiber
and ground feather were resistant to water absorption (WA = 7.55 to 15. 29%) and
thickness swelling (TS = 2.0 to 4.71%). The excellent dimensional stability of
featherboards at 5% to 10% feather content is comparable or better than commercial
wood-fiber cement board (HardiLite®, TS = 2.14%, WA = 13.05%). This effect may be
due to the use of silane coupling agent in the formulation. The coupling agent acts at
the interface bridging two dissimilar materials to improve adhesion. However, the
formation of chemical bonds with the amino acids of the feather or silicate hydrates of
the cement would also reduce or block potential adsorption sites of water.

Sustainable Use of Waste Chicken Feather for Durable and Low Cost… 361

Consequently, boards showed improved dimensional stability at 5% to 10% feather

content. At higher feather loading, the boards showed very high water absorption and
thickness swelling (>30%) after 24 hours of water soaking. These boards are likely to
have contained too much feather for the level of coupling agent and cement used such
that fibers were not completely coated with cement. This may have allowed water
molecules to be adsorbed by the hygroscopic amino acids resulting in very high water
absorption and thickness swelling.

DURABILITY AGAINST DECAY FUNGI AND TERMITES

Threats from decay and termites to wood and wood-based composites are considerable
in the tropics. The resistance of featherboard to decay fungi (Basidiomycetes,
Actinomycetes) and subterranean termites (Coptotermes, Macrotermes, Nasutitermes,
Microcerotermes spp) widely distributed in the area was evaluated using tests used for
evaluating field efficacy of new termiticides (Kard 1989). Samples consisting of
untreated wood and featherboard were placed directly on the ground in each concrete
slab station (Figure 8). We believe that this test is more severe than laboratory
bioassays and would give a more realistic performance of the boards under field
conditions. After twelve weeks of exposure, all untreated woods were completely
destroyed by decay fungi or termites in all stations (about 100% loss in weight). In
comparison, featherboards remained intact and in excellent condition as indicated by
the minimal loss in weight (<2%) of the samples after the exposure period (Figure 9).
The results confirmed what was expected since featherboards are made up of cement
and feather keratin which are very resistant to decay and inedible to termites. Unlike
conventional building materials made from wood flakes, particles or fibers that are
highly susceptible to decay and termites due to the presence of cellulose in wood that
decay fungi and wood boring insects use as source of food. The excellent decay and
termite resistance of featherboards made them an ideal building material in the tropics.

POTENTIALS, LIMITATIONS AND BARRIERS TO COMMERCIALIZATION

The technology for fabricating cement bonded featherboards for non structural
applications such as paneling and ceiling materials in low cost housing projects is
technically feasible. The technology is simple and can readily be adopted for
commercialization. It requires simple machineries and equipment that are locally
available or can easily be fabricated in developing countries. Moreover, the technology
can easily be adopted by countries in Asia and Africa since waste chicken feather is
abundant in all countries. Furthermore, considering that poultry processing plants are
practically giving away waste chicken feathers for free, initial economic study showed
the commercial production of featherboard is financially feasible. Estimate of retail prize
of a featherboard could be 40-50% les than comparable cement bonded panel available
in the market to date. Although it is not yet manufactured commercially, end users are
already optimistic and open to the idea of using featherboard in construction. There
could also be potential for the production of other small cement products such as hollow
blocks, plant pots, packaging boxes and crates, etc. The project could potentially create
a whole new industry out of the production of featherboards and other related products.
In the adoption of new technology, barriers and limitations need to be considered before
commercialization is pursued. The featherboard production process requires large
volume of water for cleaning and disinfection. Waste water treatment containing
particulate matter and sanitation in the area maybe an issue. But considering that
mostly organic materials are present in the waste water, traditional waste water
treatment would be sufficient to handle the problem. Health issues such as avian
influenza and respiratory disorder (e.g. asthma) of plant workers may also be relevant
when considering commercialization. However, the risk of using chicken feathers from
birds contaminated with the avian flue would be low since chickens suspected of having
the virus are immediately destroyed and the carcasses burned. Furthermore, the risk of
viral infection to consumer is minimal considering the feather undergoes a series of
cleaning and disinfection before being encased in a cement matrix. Plant workers are
probably at high risks but danger and exposure can be mitigated by proper protection
and information. But probably the biggest hurdle to commercialization is its limited
production capability. The technology uses a batch process board formation and
consolidation. This is a slow, labor intensive process which may not cope with large
demand. In addition, the several days of board curing takes up large inventory space
and ties up capital for several weeks. It would be commercially more viable to modify
the technology from a dry, batch process to a continuous wet process (Hatschek
Process). The wet process involves formation of boards using a continuous belt that
passes through slurry of cement and feather. It is the process currently being used in
commercial manufacture of fiber cement composites. It is fast and amenable to
automation and mass production. However, modification to the formulation and forming
process must be developed if the technology is to be adopted for wet process
production of featherboard.

Feathers contain keratin, which termites cannot digest. Since they were just waste
products, the manufacturers won’t spend too much in the production of the boards using
chicken feathers as additive. Conventional waste disposal methods such as burning,
burial or recycling the feathers for use in low quality animal feeds are regarded as
undesirable because of damage to the environment. With the use of chicken feathers in
the production of boards, these conventional waste disposal methods will be lessen.

(http://www.propertywire.com/news/related-stories/chicken- feather-house-ecobuilding-
200808051424.html)

Study of Winandy et al. (2003) investigated the use of chicken feather fibers as
replacement for wood fibers in medium density fiberboard. The results showed that the
fiberboards had a slight reduction in strength but improved dimensional stability and
decay resistance.

Fibers from chicken feathers are very small (5 microns in diameter) and have high surface area with
excellent adsorbent properties (Schmidt and Jayasundera 2004). They are finer than wood pulp and
could collect more spores, dust and other particles, thereby improving air quality inside homes and
offices. Feathers also have specific sites to adsorb molecular ion species (e.g. cupric, ferric and chromate
ions) as well as particulate matters (Schmidt et al. 1997). Consequently, they have potential use for
cleaning industrial effluents (Misra et al. 2001, Al-Asheh et al. 2003, De la Rosa et al. 2008). This ability
of chicken feathers to adsorbs contaminants was demonstrated when an oil tanker carrying about
200,000 liters of bunker oil sank and spilled oil near the central island of Guimaras, Iloilo, Philippines. To
help fight the worse oil spill in the country, the Philippine Coast Guard used human hair and chicken
feather to soak up the bunker oil (Seares 2006). A number of commercial applications have been
explored to utilize fibers from chicken feathers (Schmidt 1998). Unfortunately, due to the low volume
requirements of these new products they have not significantly reduced the volume of waste feathers
generated each year. Composite building materials, such as fiberboard and particleboard, are high
volume, high value applications which could potentially consume a large amount of waste chicken
feathers. A simple, practical way to incorporate poultry feathers into composite boards is to bind them
with Portland cement. Limited studies on this aspect of feather utilization have been reported (Hamoush
and El-Hawary 1994). However, if this could be proven feasible, it could offer an affordable new building
material with both economic and environmental advantages.

The USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (2008) estimates that broiler chicken production in major poultry
producing countries is about 74,237,000 metric tons annually. Most of these chickens go to
supermarkets and fast food chains to meet demand for white meat. Considering that about 6% of the
total weight of mature chicken is feather, the poultry industry generates about 4.45 billion kilograms of
waste feathers as a by product when the birds are processed in commercial dressing plants. The
tremendous volume of waste feather creates a serious solid waste problem in many countries
(Parkinson 1998, McGovern 2000). Traditional disposal methods of waste feather are expensive and
difficult. Waste feathers are often buried in landfills or piled in dumpsites. However, feathers are
naturally resistant to deterioration and persist in the environment for decades. Consequently, they take
up large space in landfills and the bad odor from residual manure, blood and other extraneous materials
cause pollution in the area. In some countries waste feathers are burned in incineration plants. But
burning waste feather is expensive and the process results in the emission of green house gases and
problems with ash disposal. Some companies in the US and Europe convert feathers to protein for
animal feeds. However, the process is expensive because feathers are hydrolyzed at high temperature
and pressure requiring large amount of water and energy in commercial plants. In general, current
disposal methods for waste chicken feather are environmentally unsound, restricted or results in
products that are of low demand. Chicken feathers vary in form and function. They are generally
classified as either contour, down, semiplume, filoplume and bristle. However, regardless of type,
chicken feathers are approximately half feather fiber (barbs) and half quill (rachis) by weight (Figure 1).
The quill is the stiff central core with hollow tube structure and the barbs are the fine fibrous materials
that branch out of the quill. The feather fiber and quill are both made from keratin (about 90% by
weight), which is an insoluble and highly durable protein found in hair, hoofs and horns of animals
(Karshan 1930, Schmidt 2002). Keratin consists of over 90 amino acids but largely made up of cystine,
lysine, proline and serine (Figure 2) (Ward et al 1955, Harrar and Woods 1963). These amino acids tend
to cross-link with one another by forming disulfide or hydrogen bonds resulting in fibers that are tough,
strong, lightweight and with good thermal and insulating properties (Schmidt 2002, Poole et al. 2009).
The unique characteristics of keratin generated interests in investigating alternative uses of waste
chicken feathers for a number of potential applications. Hong and Wool (2005) developed a new
generation of microchips that use chicken feather keratin to replace silicon. Because of their strength
and porous structure, feathers are good conductors of electrons which make them suitable for
electronics as well as automotive and aeronautical applications. Circuit boards produced with keratin
from chicken feather are reportedly 50% lighter and move electrical signals faster than conventional
silicon chip (Jacobson 2002, Frazer 2004). A number of studies have shown that the intermolecular cross
links in keratin can be broken to obtain a soluble fraction that can be processed into polymeric
materials, such as packaging and mulching films (Khot et al. 2001, Liebner 2005, Wool and Sun 2005).
Fibers from chicken feather are also being blended with rice straw fiber to make fabrics with similar feel
on the skin as wool but with excellent heat and sound insulation (Staedter 2006, Choi 2006).

In 1998, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) developed the technology for separating chicken
feathers into fiber and particulate (quill) fractions (Gassner et al. 1998). This development paved the
way for the use of chicken feather fibers as reinforcements in composite products. Winandy et al. (2003)
investigated the use of chicken feather fibers as replacement for wood fibers in medium density
fiberboard. The results showed that the fiberboards had a slight reduction in strength but improved
dimensional stability and decay resistance. Other investigators used feather fibers to develop new bio-
composites (Wrześniewska-Tosik et al. 2007, Aluigi et al. 2008, Huda and Yang 2008) or as reinforcement
in plastics (Barone 2005a,b; Barone and Schmidt 2005, Barone et al. 2005a,b; Barone and Gregoire
2006). These studies claimed that since chicken feather reinforced composites uses conventional
processing techniques, it would be cost-competitive with fiberglass, and eventually find their way into
car dashboards, boat exteriors, and similar products (Barone and Schmidt 2005a,b; Barone et al. 2005a).
Fibers from chicken feathers are very small (5 microns in diameter) and have high surface area with
excellent adsorbent properties (Schmidt and Jayasundera 2004). They are finer than wood pulp and
could collect more spores, dust and other particles, thereby improving air quality inside homes and
offices. Feathers also have specific sites to adsorb molecular ion species (e.g. cupric, ferric and chromate
ions) as well as particulate matters (Schmidt et al. 1997). Consequently, they have potential use for
cleaning industrial effluents (Misra et al. 2001, Al-Asheh et al. 2003, De la Rosa et al. 2008). This ability
of chicken feathers to adsorbs contaminants was demonstrated when an oil tanker carrying about
200,000 liters of bunker oil sank and spilled oil near the central island of Guimaras, Iloilo, Philippines. To
help fight the worse oil spill in the country, the Philippine Coast Guard used human hair and chicken
feather to soak up the bunker oil (Seares 2006). A number of commercial applications have been
explored to utilize fibers from chicken feathers (Schmidt 1998). Unfortunately, due to the low volume
requirements of these new products they have not significantly reduced the volume of waste feathers
generated each year. Composite building materials, such as fiberboard and particleboard, are high
volume, high value applications which could potentially consume a large amount of waste chicken
feathers. A simple, practical way to incorporate poultry feathers into composite boards is to bind them
with Portland cement. Limited studies on this aspect of feather utilization have been reported (Hamoush
and El-Hawary 1994). However, if this could be proven feasible, it could offer an affordable new building
material with both economic and environmental advantages.