ORIGINAL PAPER/PEER-REVIEWED
Utilization of Turkey Feather
Fibers in Nonwoven Erosion
Control Fabrics
By Brian R. George1, Anne Bockarie2, Holly McBride1,
David Hoppy2, and Alison Scutti2
ABSTRACT
Currently, between two and four billion pounds of feathers
are produced annually by the poultry processing industry (1).
These feathers present a disposal problem, and are usually
converted to animal feed. A method of effectively stripping
the feather fibers from the quill without damaging the fibers
has been patented, and as a result research is being conducted
to determine uses for these fibers (4). Current research has
focused on creating latex bonded fabrics containing turkey
feather fibers for utilization as erosion control fabrics. These
fabrics have been compared with currently available erosion
control fabrics to determine their suitability for this particular
purpose. The turkey fiber fabrics performed similarly to the
commercially available erosion control fabrics tested in terms
of light and water transmittance. None of the fabrics significantly affected the pH, nitrogen or phosphorus content of the
soil even though the turkey fabrics had fully decomposed by
the conclusion of the experiment. The turkey fabrics
increased soil moisture content and decreased soil compaction, which are critical properties for successful ecological
restoration of habitats. One significant drawback of the
turkey fabrics was difficulty in handling and installation on
the site compared to the two commercial erosion control fabrics tested.
INTRODUCTION
Presently, between two and four billion pounds of feathers are
1 School of Textiles & Materials Technology, Philadelphia
University, Philadelphia, PA
2 School of Science & Health, Philadelphia University, Philadelphia,
PA
45 INJ Summer 2003
produced annually by the poultry processing industry [1].
These feathers are usually converted to animal feed via
hydrolyzation in an attempt to recycle it rather than dispose
of these feathers in landfills [2,3]. However, this method may
result in diseases or bacteria being passed along to the
ingestors of this feather meal. Until recently there was no
method of separating the quill from the feather fibers without
damaging the fibers, but the United States Department of
Agriculture has patented a method to perform this task [4].
As a result of this patent, research is being conducted to determine uses for these fibers, which could be purchased for
approximately $0.50-$2.00 per pound [4-7].
Most of the current research has been conducted with chicken feather fibers due to their greater availability and lower
modulus than turkey feather fibers. However, the turkey
feather fibers are generally longer than the chicken feather
fibers, which could be beneficial for textile processing. The
feathers consist of three basic sections, as depicted in Figure
1: the quill, the pennaceous fibers, which are located on the
upper portion of the quill, and the plumulaceous fibers,
which extend from the lower part of the quill [8]. The plumulaceous fibers usually consist of a stem with two to three
branches attached, and are soft and flexible. The pennaceous
fibers are generally straighter, stiffer, and larger in diameter
than the plumulaceous fibers. The linear densities and
mechanical properties of turkey feather fibers are reported in
Table 1 [9,10]. Previous research focused on creating yarns
and knitted and nonwoven fabrics from feather fibers [6,7,911]. The turkey feather fibers, as received, were too stiff to
card and needlepunch effectively, but could be air-laid and
wet laid and latex bonded [9-11]. Current research concerns
utilizing turkey feathers in nonwoven fabrics designed for
erosion control purposes, and comparing these fabrics with
Figure 2
SPECIMEN OF TURKEY FIBER FABRIC ZV
Figure 1
DIAGRAM OF A CONTOUR FEATHER [8]
other commercially available erosion control fabrics.
Erosion control materials are often employed on construction sites and other areas that have been denuded of vegetation, where soil stabilization is desired. These fabrics prevent
sediment from being removed during rainfall, which not only
preserves the landscape, but it also keeps nutrients in place,
which is essential for revegetation of the site. Ultimately, the
fabric should biodegrade while vegetation grows until the
area is totally revegetated and there is no further need for synthetic erosion control.
EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
Contour turkey feather with the inner quills removed were
supplied by MaXim LLC (Pasadena, CA). The feathers, as
supplied, consisted of plumulaceous and pennaceous fibers
attached to the outer quill. The feathers were processed as
received with a Rando-Webber air laid web forming system.
Based on previous experimentation, webs 91 cm. by 51 cm. of
two different thicknesses were produced in order to determine
which would provide better results [10]. The webs were latex
bonded via spray bonding with latex supplied by Air Product
Polymers. Two different biodegradable latexes were utilized:
Figure 3
SPECIMEN OF TURKEY FIBER FABRIC ZA
Vinac 884 and Airflex 100HS. Vinac 884, a vinyl acetate
homopolymer, has a glass transition temperature of 33ºC,
while the glass transition temperature of Airflex 100HS, a
vinyl acetate ethylene polymer, is 7ºC. The latexes were diluted to 18.2 percent solids and were applied to the webs with a
hand held Craftsman electric airless sprayer. The latex was
applied to one side of the web, which was passed through a
2.4 meter long Tsuji Senki Kogyo through air oven at 170ºC at
Table 1
LINEAR DENSITY AND MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
OF TURKEY CONTOUR FEATHER FIBERS [9,10]
Feather Fiber
Plumulaceous
Pennaceous
46 INJ Summer 2003
Average Denier
(g/9000m)
55.2
142.0
Average Tenacity
at Break (g/den)
0.36
0.83
Average Strain
at Break (%)
16.43
7.96
Average Modulus
(g/den)
4.47
15.55
Figure 4
SPECIMEN OF TURKEY FIBER FABRIC XV
Figure 5
SPECIMEN OF TURKEY FIBER FABRIC XA
a speed of 0.5 meters per minute for drying. After the initial
spraying, the fabric was turned over and the spraying and
drying steps were repeated so that both sides of the fabric
were bonded. Images of the fabrics are contained in the following figures. Figure 2 is the turkey fabric designated ZV,
the thinner turkey fiber fabric bonded with Vinac 884. Figure
3 illustrates ZA, the thinner turkey fiber fabric bonded with
Airflex 100 HS. Figures 4 and 5 depict the X series of turkey
fiber fabrics, which are thicker than the Z fabrics. The XV fabric in Figure 4 is bonded with Vinac 884 while Figure 5 contains the XA fabric, which is bonded with Airflex 100 HS.
Two commercially produced erosion control fabrics were
also utilized in this study. The first fabric consisted of a loose
plain weave jute mesh fabric, illustrated in Figure 6. On average, there were 4.3 ends/cm. in the warp direction and 3.0
picks/cm. in the filling direction. The warp yarns had an
average linear density of 41,490 grams per 9000 meters
(denier), while the filling yarns had an average linear density
47 INJ Summer 2003
Figure 6
SPECIMEN OF WOVEN JUTE FABRIC
of 17,694 denier. This fabric, produced by Indian Valley
Industries, sells for $46.40 for approximately an 84 square
meter roll.
The second fabric, illustrated in Figure 7, consists of several different components. The fabric consists primarily of coir
(coconut) fibers with an average linear density of 312 denier.
These fibers, formed into a mat held together by fiber to fiber
friction, are contained between olefin mesh on both sides. The
olefin mesh consists of monofilaments with an average linear
density of 1,083 denier that are spaced 1.9 cm. apart in both
the warp and weft directions. Where the filaments cross they
are thermally bonded together, which provides the mesh with
stability and strength. Olefin multifilament yarns are utilized
to bind the sandwich of mesh, coir, and mesh together and to
provide stability. The yarns have an average linear density of
1,024 denier and travel five cm. in the warp direction on one
face of the fabric, over the mesh, and then pass through a cir-
Figure 7
SPECIMEN OF COIR NET FABRIC
cular hole in the coir to the other side of the fabric, where they
again float over the mesh, as depicted in Figure 7. This fabric,
known as C-2 Coir, is produced by Fabric Synthetic
Industries, and costs $114 for approximately an 84 square
meter roll.
The various fabrics were tested both in the laboratory and
in-situ to determine their effectiveness. The laboratory testing
was commenced after the samples had conditioned for at least
twenty-four hours at standard temperature and relative
humidity conditions. The laboratory tests consisted of thickness, basis weight, tensile strength and elongation, moisture
transmission, and light transmission. Thickness was determined with a Randall & Stickney thickness gauge with a 2.8
cm. presser foot with a pressure of 4.1 kilo-Pascals. Five measurements from two twenty by twenty cm. specimens were
completed, for a total of ten measurements from each sample.
The basis weight was determined by measuring the mass of
twenty specimens of each fabric with dimensions 10 cm. by 5
cm. Tensile strength and elongation tests were conducted
according to ASTM test method D5035, the cut strip method.
An Instron Model 1125 interfaced with an IBM Personal
System/2 Model 55 SX computer equipped with Labvantage
Series IV software was utilized for this evaluation. Ten specimens in the machine or warp direction and the cross or filling
direction were tested, with the average values and standard
deviations reported. The specimens measured 10 cm. by 5
cm., with the length cut in the direction of the test, MD or CD.
The tensile strength is reported in kilograms of breaking force
per centimeter of width, while breaking elongation is reported as a percentage of the original length of the test specimen.
Moisture transmission was performed according to AATCC
test method 42-2000, Water Resistance: Impact Penetration
Test. The test method states that specimens should measure
17.8 cm. by 33 cm. However, only a limited amount of fabric
was produced due to a constrained feather supply at the time
of fabric production. Therefore, three specimens of 20.3 cm
squared were utilized, which were also utilized for the light
transmission tests. The specimens were clamped on an
incline with the center of the fabric 60 cm. below a spray head
attached to the bottom of a funnel. A piece of blotter paper,
previously weighed, was inserted between the fabric and the
specimen holder. Five hundred milliliters of deionized water
was poured through the funnel and spray head and onto the
fabric. Some water passed through the fabric to the blotter
paper below, while other water drained due to the incline of
the fabric and paper. Afterwards, the blotter paper was reweighed and the amount of water absorbed by the paper was
determined. The results are reported as the average amount
of water absorbed by the blotter paper.
Light transmission was determined with AATCC test
method 148-1989, Light Blocking Effect of Curtain Materials.
The light source utilized was a 60 watt fluorescent lamp rather
than the 300 watt tungsten lamp specified in the test method.
The light was located approximately 100 cm. from the specimen box, which has openings at the front and rear. The fabric
48 INJ Summer 2003
specimen is placed over the front opening of the specimen
box, while a light meter is located at the edge of the rear opening. The amount of light passing through the fabric is measured and compared to the amount of light that passes
through the specimen box without fabric at the front opening.
Three specimens of each fabric type were tested, with the
average percentage of light transmitted through the fabrics
reported.
In addition to the laboratory tests, the fabrics were also
evaluated in-situ. Two 51 cm. by 91 cm. specimens of each
fabric type were placed on a highly compacted slope in a randomized complete block design of four blocks with seven
treatments (control, jute, coir, thin turkey fabric bonded with
Vinac 884, thick turkey fabric bonded with Vinac 884, thin
turkey fabric bonded with Airflex 100 HS, and thick turkey
fabric bonded with Airflex 100 HS). The fabrics were affixed
to the slope with staples commonly utilized with erosion control fabrics to prevent movement. Prior to and six months following placement of the fabrics, soil samples were collected
from each plot and tested for nitrogen, phosphorous and pH.
A soil core 5 cm. in diameter was collected from each plot to
determine bulk density and soil moisture content. For soil
moisture 100 gram samples were weighed before and after
drying in an oven at 100oC for twenty-four hours. Soil temperature was recorded for each plot with a Taylor pocket digital thermometer. Soil compaction was measured at ten points
in each plot using a Pocket Penetrometer. Infiltration rate of
water through the soil was measured using Turf-Tec 15 cm.
diameter infiltration rings and 1.5 liters of water. The rings
were placed 2.5 cm. into the horizontal ground and water was
allowed to flow into the soil for 10 minutes and the rate of
water flow into the soil was calculated in cm./min.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Fabric production
Previous experiments with processing turkey feather fibers
indicated that they could not be carded unless they were
blended with other fibers, due to their extreme stiffness.
However, the feather fibers could be wet laid without the
need for blending.
The original webs were wet laid, but the web size produced
with the available wet laid equipment (30.5 cm. squared) was
not sufficient in area for the in-situ evaluation. Therefore, the
webs utilized for this project were air laid. Both the air laid
and wet laid processes generally resulted in the separation of
the quill and the fibers. However, as figures 2-5 indicate, there
are some feathers that did not undergo quill-fiber separation.
This most likely affected properties such as basis weight,
strength, stiffness, and moisture and light transmission. All of
the fabrics exhibit thick and thin areas. The majority of these
inconsistencies are due to the processing of the fibers. It was
observed that during the air laid process that some fibers
clung to the feed roll of the Rando Webber rather than being
carried to the licker-in, which most likely led to thickness differences.
Basis weight variations can also be attributed to the method
of latex application. Spray bonding was chosen over other
available methods of latex application because it allowed the
fabric to retain its thickness, which was considered to be an
important feature of an erosion control fabric. However, the
method of spray bonding, a hand held sprayer, most likely
resulted in uneven application of latex, even though attempts
were made to uniformly spray the webs. Although the webs
were sprayed on both sides, no method of applying latex to
the interior of the webs was utilized. This could result in
lower mechanical values than otherwise expected.
Laboratory characterization
Table 2 lists the average breaking force and elongation of
the fabrics, as well as the standard deviations. This table also
provides the average thicknesses and basis weights of the fabrics. The turkey fiber fabrics have much lower basis weights
than the woven jute and coir net fabrics. Initially, higher basis
weight turkey fabrics were produced, but evaluation of these
fabrics indicated that they were not bonded throughout the
thickness, resulting in weak fabrics. It was also determined
that these fabrics were most likely too thick to allow transmission of moisture and light to the ground below. Although
the X series of fabrics were designed to have a greater basis
weight than the Z series, the difference between the average
basis weights of the XV and XA fabrics is surprising. All of
the X series webs were produced sequentially under the same
conditions, so it is most likely that the XV fabrics were
sprayed with latex for a slightly longer time period, although
attempts were made to provide uniform spray times. This
increased spray time would result in greater amount of latex
solids on these fabrics, resulting in mechanical properties different from the other turkey fiber fabrics. Mechanical characterization of the fabrics indicated that the turkey fabrics do
not have the ability to support loads as well as the commercial
fabrics. In fact, the turkey fabrics are several magnitudes
weaker than the commercial fabrics. This indicates that
greater care would most likely be required when utilizing
these fabrics during installation to ensure that improper handling does not destroy them. These lower values may also
indicate that environmental conditions such as high winds
and heavy rainfalls may overwhelm the fabrics. Part of the
cause of the lower values of the turkey fabrics is due to fabric
construction, when compared to the other two fabrics. The
turkey fabrics rely solely on fibers bonded together.
Additionally, as mentioned previously, no method of applying latex to the interior of these fabrics was utilized. It is possible, especially in the higher basis weight X fabrics, that
fibers in the interior areas of the fabric were not bonded,
which would result in decreased breaking load values. The
coir fabric, while similar in that it consists mostly of fibers, has
mesh and multifilament yarns to contribute to its load bearing
ability. The woven jute fabric consists of large yarns woven
together, which can support high loads.
The breaking load and elongation values are highly variable, as evidenced by the relatively high standard deviation
49 INJ Summer 2003
values, indicating that the turkey fabrics themselves are not
uniform in their construction. This can be due to a variety of
factors, such as variations in basis weights, variations in the
amount of latex applied to the fabrics, poor bonding between
the fibers, and strength of the latex. Some variation in
mechanical properties could also be dependent upon the
amount of pennaceous and plumulaceous fibers contained in
the fabrics, as these fibers have different strength and strain
properties as displayed in Table 1. The breaking load of the
turkey fabrics is greater in the cross direction rather than the
machine direction, but this is due to the fact that the air laid
system utilized to create the fabrics provides greater fiber orientation in the cross direction. The coir net has similar breaking load values in both machine and cross directions. The
slightly greater value in machine direction may be due to the
multifilament olefin yarn utilized to connect the meshes on
either side of the coir web traveling in this direction. The
woven jute has a vastly greater load bearing capability in the
machine direction rather than the cross direction due to the
larger diameter yarns traveling in this direction.
Table 3 contains the light and water transmission values of
the various fabrics. With the exception of the XV turkey fabric, the turkey fabrics compare favorably with the coir net fabric in terms of light transmission. This would seem to indicate
that these fabrics should allow enough light to pass through
in order to allow plant growth under the fabric during the
revegetation process. The XV turkey fabric transmits approximately half of the light that the other fabrics transmitted.
This may lead to poor plant growth and longer revegetation
times. The woven jute fabric, due to its loose construction,
transmits at least five times the amount of light as the other
fabrics, which might provide optimal conditions for revegetation.
In terms of water transmitted through the fabrics, all of the
turkey fabrics with the exception of XV are comparable to the
woven jute and coir net fabrics. This indicates that these
turkey fabrics should be able to transmit enough water
through the fabric to support plant growth. Fabric XV transmitted about one third of the water transmitted by all of the
other fabrics. Most likely this is due to its increased basis
weight in comparison to the other turkey fabrics. The
increased basis weight would allow the fabric to absorb more
moisture and thus transmit less to the blotter paper below it.
Both fabric types, X and Z, bonded with the Vinac 884 have
lower water transmission values than the fabrics bonded with
Airflex 100HS. Since all the webs were produced under similar conditions, the differences noted can be attributed to differences in the latexes.
In-situ characterization
Table 4 contains the soil data both prior to and after the insitu evaluations. The fabrics were installed on a denuded
slope to determine their effectiveness in the environment. The
fabrics were arranged in a randomized complete block design
so that they all experienced similar environmental conditions
in terms of ultraviolet exposure, degree of slope grade, and
Table 2:
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF EROSION CONTROL FABRICS
Property Fabric Type
Average Thickness (cm)
Thickness Standard
Deviation (cm)
Average Basis Weight
(g/m2)
Basis Weight Standard
Deviation (g/m2)
Mean Breaking Load
MD (kg/cm)
MD Breaking Load
Std. Deviation (kg/cm)
Mean Breaking
Elongation MD (%)
MD Breaking Elongation
Std. Deviation (%)
Mean Breaking
Load CD (kg/cm)
CD Breaking Load
Std. Deviation (kg/cm)
Mean Breaking
Elongation CD (%)
CD Breaking Elongation
Std. Deviation (%)
XA Turkey
0.41
XV Turkey
0.50
ZA Turkey
0.29
ZV Turkey
0.35
Coir Net
0.54
Woven Jute
0.43
0.12
0.09
0.05
0.09
0.15
0.13
154
205
150
144
290
499
26.2
6.93
7.13
10.0
14.8
14.8
0.004
0.007
0.005
0.004
1.89
13.7
0.003
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.22
2.96
8.24
18.1
22.5
21.1
26.7
12.8
8.39
8.58
3.77
10.4
4.73
2.25
0.007
0.013
0.016
0.016
1.78
3.74
0.001
0.006
0.009
0.005
0.31
0.89
9.18
14.1
17.5
16.1
22.6
22.2
5.83
5.67
3.15
5.62
4.49
4.31
exposure to rainfall, in order to provide as much uniformity of
testing as possible.
One of the requirements of an erosion control fabric is that
it should be able to withstand the installation procedures,
including handling. The turkey fabrics were generally much
stiffer than the coir and jute fabrics. Some of the stiffness can
be attributed to the use of latex to bond the fibers together,
which prevents the fibers from moving. Another bonding
method should result in a more flexible fabric. Use of latex
with a lower glass transition temperature may result in a more
fabric with greater flexibility. Another cause of the fabric stiffness is the turkey fibers themselves. While the plumulaceous
fibers are flexible, the pennaceous fibers, which are more
numerous in the fabrics, are much stiffer. These fibers do not
bend easily, which influenced the bending behavior and stiff-
ness of the fabric. The stiffness of these fabrics made handling
and installation of the turkey fabrics difficult, as caution was
required not to tear or otherwise destroy these fabrics. Even
with delicate handling some of the turkey fabrics, notably the
lower basis weight Z fabrics, started to deteriorate during the
installation process. The Z fabrics deteriorated more during
handling due to the lower basis weight, as compared to the X
fabrics, which meant fewer fibers per area, and thus results in
a more delicate and weaker fabric.
Mean standard soil chemical properties measured before
fabric installation and at the close of the experiment are listed
in Table 4. Nitrogen and phosphorus are measured in kilograms of mineral per hectare (kg/ha). In general, the placement of erosion control fabrics did not significantly affect the
soil in terms of pH, nitrogen content, or phosphorus content.
Table 3
OTHER MEASURED PROPERTIES OF EROSION CONTROL FABRICS
Property Fabric Type
Average Basis Weight
(g/m2)
Average Light
Transmitted (%)
Average Water
Transmitted (g)
50 INJ Summer 2003
XA Turkey
XV Turkey
ZA Turkey
ZV Turkey
Coir Net
Woven Jute
154
205
150
144
290
499
8.24
3.31
7.95
8.57
8.45
44.8
25.4
7.10
25.6
20.8
25.1
25.9
Table 4
MEAN SOIL CHEMICAL PROPERTIES BEFORE AND AFTER TREATMENT WITH EROSION
CONTROL FABRICS AT PHILADELPHIA UNIVERSITY, PA, 2001-2002.
Property
pH
Before
After
Control
6.00
6.17
XA Turkey
6.17
6.33
XV Turkey
6.33
6.17
ZA Turkey
6.33
6.50
ZV Turkey
6.00
6.33
Coir Net
6.00
6.33
Woven Jute
6.33
6.17
Before
After
14.9
14.9
22.4
18.7
22.4
14.9
44.8
29.9
14.9
29.9
54.1
115.7
63.5
29.9
Phosphorus
(kg/ha)
Before
After
78.4
84.0
84.0
69.1
78.4
22.4
84.0
22.4
78.4
102.7
84.0
69.1
84.0
59.7
Nitrogen
(kg/ha)
No addition of nutrients through fabric decomposition is an
asset for erosion control in desert environments because invasive plant species tend to outcompete native species on
restoration sites where nutrients have been added through
site treatment. As soil chemistry is generally slow to change,
further studies over several seasons would be beneficial in
determining whether fabric decomposition enhances nutrient
load.
Table 5 lists the mean soil physical properties measured
prior to installation and after the termination of the experiment. Percent soil moisture changed significantly during the
course of the experiment. Fabrics were installed during a
severe drought in November 2001 so initial percent soil moisture ranged from 6-10% which is extremely low for temperate
deciduous forests in the northeast United States. The final
measurement was taken during June 2002 following spring
rains so the range changed to 19-29%. While the control did
show a noticeable change in soil moisture, plots treated with
XV, ZA, ZV turkey feather fabrics held significantly more
moisture than the control (p = 0.02). It is important to note that
the coir net and woven jute did not increase soil moisture over
that of the control. Improved soil moisture is critical to seed
germination and early plant establishment on restoration
sites. These soils were highly compacted and so the infiltration rate was extremely low which means water did not readily seep into the soil as it should. An increased infiltration rate
is desirable as it indicates that water flows through the soil
rather than over it, thereby reducing erosion due to rainwater
run-off. The fabrics did not significantly change the soil infiltration rate in the six month period, however there were some
differences in surface soil compaction. In all instances, including the control, surface soil compaction decreased. Soil compaction, a measure of the tightness of packing of soil particles,
is directly related to infiltration rate. A highly compact soil
will have low infiltration rates, while a less compact soil has
more space between dirt particles so that the water can enter
the soil with less difficulty. A lower soil compaction value is
desirable because in addition to decreasing erosion due to
water run-off, it allows nutrients to enter the soil, which in
turn increases vegetation growth, which also decreases erosion. Additional research over several seasons is needed to
51 INJ Summer 2003
determine whether infiltration rates would be enhanced by
installation of the various fabrics as they stabilize the soil and
permit vegetation to re-establish on the site.
Of the four turkey fiber fabrics evaluated, the XV fabric had
the best combination of properties during the in-situ evaluations. It was easier to handle, held the highest soil moisture
and reduced surface compaction most significantly (p =
0.000005) of the turkey fabrics. This is most likely due to the
greater thickness of this fabric, which would decrease soil
dehydration. Although the coir net fabric is thicker, some of
the thickness can be attributed to the netting, which would
not aid in preventing evaporation due to its construction.
Generally, erosion control fabrics are designed to survive
two years in the environment so that re-growth of vegetation
can be fully established. The fabrics were tested on this site
for approximately six months. During this time period the
turkey fibers biodegraded almost completely. In comparison,
the jute and coir fabrics had degraded only slightly, exhibiting
much more resistance to the environment than the turkey
fibers. However, the turkey fabrics, as well as the coir and jute
fabrics, all provided stability to the soil and allowed vegetation to grow, thereby revegetating this formerly bare site.
Nevertheless, much of the in-situ data is highly variable, and
further experiments with greater numbers of replications are
necessary in order to fully understand the effects of erosion
control materials upon the environment.
CONCLUSIONS
Production of erosion control fabrics consisting of turkey
feather fibers can be performed utilizing air laid web formation and latex bonding. However, greater control of the latex
application is required to obtain increased product consistency.
The turkey fiber fabrics, in comparison to the commercial
erosion control fabrics evaluated, performed better than
expected. Although the turkey fabrics were quite weaker than
the other fabrics, they were often similar in terms of water and
light transmission, as well as in prevention of erosion.
Additionally, the feather fabrics have been shown to increase
the retention of moisture somewhat more effectively than
even heavier basis weight fabrics of nonwoven coir or woven
Table 5
MEAN SOIL PROPERTIES BEFORE AND AFTER TREATMENT WITH EROSION CONTROL
FABRICS AT PHILADELPHIA UNIVERSITY, PA, 2001-2002.
Property
Soil Moisture
(%)
Before
After
Infiltration
Rate
(cm/min)
Before
After
Soil
Compaction
(kg/cm2)
Before
After
Control
XA Turkey
XV Turkey
ZA Turkey
ZV Turkey
Coir Net
Woven Jute
10.0
21.2
10.0
28.3
8.87
29.1
8.20
26.9
11.2
26.7
6.87
19.2
6.29
23.5
0.91
0.98
0.62
0.28
1.88
0.55
0.48
0.71
0.49
0.27
0.29
0.35
0.34
0.21
3.33
2.66
3.60
1.98
2.71
1.93
3.39
1.96
3.30
2.19
4.03
2.53
3.26
2.06
jute. One would presume that this effect would increase the
germination rate for seeds that were sown under the fabrics.
One would expect that the branched structure of the feathers
would provide at least as much erosion protection as any of
the typically utilized commercial fabrics. Overall, the nonwoven turkey fiber fabrics have the potential to replace currently available commercial erosion control fabrics, if certain
properties can be improved.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Carlo Licata at Maxim LLC
for supplying turkey feathers and Philadelphia University for
support, including the land to evaluate the fabrics.
Unpublished report, School of Textiles & Materials
Technology, Philadelphia University (Summer 2000).
10. Evazynajad, A., Kar, A., Veluswamy, S., McBride, H., and
George, B. “Production and characterization of yarns and fabrics utilizing turkey feather fibers.” Proceedings of the Fall
2001 Materials Research Society Meeting, MRS Fall 2001
Conference, Boston, vol. 702 (November, 2001).
11. Evazynajad, A. “A study of production of turkey feather
fiber/nylon yarn and fabric.” Master’s Thesis, School of
Textiles & Materials Technology, Philadelphia University,
2000.
— INJ
REFERENCES
1. Schmidt, W., Agricultural Research Service, USDA, personal communication (November 1, 1999).
2. Choi, J.M. and Nelson, P.V. “Developing a slow release
nitrogen fertilizer from organic sources. II. Using poultry
feathers.” J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 121 (4), 634-638, (1996).
3.
Vincent
Corporation,
“Feather
meal.”
www.vincentcorp.com/apps/animal.htm, (November 1995).
4. Comis, D. “Chicken feathers: eco-friendly ‘plastics’ of the
21st century?”
Agricultural Research Service News
(February 9, 1998).
5. Terlip, C, Featherfiber Corporation, personal communication (November 1999).
6. Ye, W., Broughton, R.M. Jr., and Hess, J.B. “Chicken feather as a fiber source for nonwoven insulation.” Int.
Nonwovens J. 8 (1), 53-59 (Spring 1999).
7. Ye, W., R.M. Broughton, Jr., and J.B. Hess, “Chicken feather
fiber: a new fiber for nonwoven insulation materials.” INDATEC 98: Book of Papers: Largest International Nonwovens
Technical Conference, INDA1998 Conference, Atlantic City,
pp. 7.01-7.16 (September, 1998).
8. Lucas, A.M. and Stettenheim, P.R. “Structures of feather.”
Avian Anatomy Integument 1, 235-274 (1972)
9. Kar, A. and Veluswamy, S. “Yarn from turkey feathers.”
52 INJ Summer 2003
Press to return to the Table of Contents