BASF Zetag & Magnafloc Alternative: CNfloc Cross-Reference (2026)

BASF publishes grade-level charge density and molecular weight descriptors for the Zetag powder range, so this guide gives a grade-by-grade cross-reference against our own range built on that published data. For Magnafloc, no equivalent published parameters were obtainable, and we say so rather than filling the gap. This cross-reference guide maps CNfloc grades to each Zetag and Magnafloc model for procurement teams evaluating alternatives.

BASF acquired Ciba Specialty Chemicals in 2009, inheriting the Zetag and Magnafloc polymer brands that Ciba had developed over decades. These brands remain widely specified in water utility contracts across Europe, Africa, and Asia-Pacific. In 2019, BASF divested a portion of its water treatment chemicals portfolio, and some regional distribution shifted. Despite brand ownership changes, the model numbers persist in operating manuals and tender specifications globally.

The technical reality: Zetag and Magnafloc performance depends entirely on ionic type, charge density (mol%), and molecular weight (Daltons). According to WEF MOP 8, polymer selection for dewatering relies on these three parameters — not brand origin. According to ICMM (International Council on Mining and Metals) best practice guidelines, flocculant selection for tailings management depends on charge-MW matching with site-specific jar testing, not brand specification. The IWA Specialist Group on Sludge Management further confirms that polymer substitution between manufacturers is routine when parameters are matched and performance validated on-site. ChinaPAM supplies cationic polyacrylamide and anionic polyacrylamide grades covering the full Zetag and Magnafloc specification range — available for trial from 500 kg with free lab samples for initial screening. For the model numbers most often named in tenders, see the Zetag 8185 and 8187 equivalent grade, the Zetag 8125 equivalent at the low-charge end, the Zetag 8165 equivalent for very high molecular weight duty, and the FLOPAM FO 4650 equivalent, each stating our grade profile alongside the manufacturer’s own published descriptors.

Decoding BASF Zetag Model Numbers

Zetag is the cationic polyacrylamide line originally from BASF Water Solutions, now under Solenis, used mainly for sludge dewatering in municipal and industrial treatment plants. BASF published a grade-level profile for the powder range in its technical information sheet for the Zetag powder series, and that document is the basis for everything below.

• Zetag 81xx = powder cationic PAM. The third and fourth digits track cationic charge: 8110 and 8115 are listed as very low charge, 8125 as low, 8140 as medium, 8160 and 8165 as medium-high, 8180 and 8185 as high, and 8190 as very high.
• The final digit separates molecular weight tiers at the same charge level. BASF lists 8180 as high charge with high molecular weight and 8185 as high charge with very high molecular weight. The same pattern holds for the 8160 and 8165 pair.
• Zetag 76xx = older nomenclature retained in the same published range. BASF lists 7645 as very low charge with very high molecular weight, and 7650 and 7652 as low and medium charge respectively, both at very high molecular weight.

One caveat that matters when you are cross-referencing a tender document: not every Zetag number in circulation appears in the published range table. Zetag 8187 is widely specified but BASF does not publish a separate charge and molecular weight profile for it, so we describe our grade against the 8185 profile and say so plainly rather than inventing figures for 8187. For the underlying selection principles see our charge density guide and MW selection guide.

Cationic: CNfloc C-Series vs Zetag Powder Range

The left three columns are BASF’s own published descriptors for the Zetag powder range. The right three are ours. Both are in-house scales and they are not interchangeable units, so read each row as the grade to start a trial with rather than a claim of identical product.

The rows marked as having no close match are there deliberately. Those charge and molecular weight combinations, mostly very low charge paired with very high molecular weight, have no near counterpart in our current range. Publishing that is more useful to a plant engineer than an approximate substitution that fails on the first full-scale trial.

Magnafloc: What Is and Is Not Published

Magnafloc is the anionic and nonionic flocculant line that came from Ciba into BASF and now sits with Solenis, used mainly in mining, mineral processing and industrial clarification. We are going to be straight about the limits of what we can verify here, because this is where most cross-reference tables on the internet start inventing numbers.

We were able to obtain a manufacturer data sheet for Magnafloc 336, which describes it in qualitative terms only, with a molecular weight description and no published charge density figure at all. For the widely specified grades in mining tenders, including Magnafloc 155, 156, 1011 and 1707, we could not obtain a manufacturer data sheet stating charge density and molecular weight. The range brochures we could reach are marketing documents without grade-level parameters.

So rather than publish a Magnafloc cross-reference table built on guesswork, here is what we will do. Send us the grade name from your tender or your current delivery note, along with the duty, the slurry or effluent characteristics, and ideally a sample. We will run a settling or jar test against our own grades and tell you which one performs, with the test data attached. That is a slower answer than a lookup table but it is an answer you can put in front of a plant manager.

For the Magnafloc molecular weight bands we are asked about most, we have set out what we can and cannot verify on their own pages: the Magnafloc 336 equivalent at the very high molecular weight end used in high-rate thickeners and Bayer settling, the Magnafloc 155, 156 and 1011 equivalent one step below it in mining and drilling fluid duty, and the Magnafloc 333, 338 and 345 equivalent covering the thickener and coal preparation band between them. None of these pages names a grade of ours up front, for the reason given above — the charge density is not published, and it is the half of the specification that decides which grade performs.

One correction worth making, since it appears in many equivalence tables: the Magnafloc LT 79xx grades are polyamine and polyDADMAC based liquid coagulants, not polyacrylamides. Matching them to a PAM grade is a chemistry error rather than an approximation. If you need that product class, our polyDADMAC coagulant guide covers what it actually does, and we do not currently supply the polyamine line.

For the anionic grades where we can help directly, our range and its published profiles are set out in the FLOPAM cross-reference guide, which is built on a manufacturer catalogue that does publish grade-level charge and molecular weight descriptors.

Commercial Comparison: What We Can State

We are not going to publish the other side’s pricing. Imported polymer reaches a plant through a regional distributor, and the landed number depends on the contract, the volume, the territory and the year. Any figure we printed here would be a guess dressed up as data. What we can state is our own commercial terms.

If you want a like-for-like commercial comparison, the practical route is to put our quotation next to your current invoice. Ask us for a price against the grade and annual volume you actually run and you will have both numbers in front of you.

Quick Cross-Reference: Zetag Powder Range

Every row below is anchored to BASF’s published grade profile for the Zetag powder range. Magnafloc grades are deliberately absent, for the reason given above.

The four rows marked as having no close match in the current range are the ones where the published molecular weight sits at the top of BASF’s scale, and we are not going to assert a chain-length match across two internal scales that were never standardised against each other. That is a statement about what a data sheet can prove, not a refusal to quote. Each of those positions now has a page setting out the nearest grade we make and where the comparison stops: Zetag 7645 and 8110 share one page because they occupy the same cell on both axes and are separated only by solution viscosity, while Zetag 7650 and Zetag 7652 move up the charge axis at that same chain length.

On the rows where we do have a close position, the pages are organised by duty rather than by number. Zetag 8115 covers the low-charge thickening and clarification end, where upstream coagulation has already done the charge work. Zetag 8140 is the most widely specified municipal position and the one where our ladder has finer resolution than theirs, so we bracket it with two charge steps rather than guessing. Zetag 8180 is the waste activated sludge page, and Zetag 8190 covers digested and long sludge age solids that a high-charge grade cannot dewater at a sensible dose — including, importantly, when not to move up to it.

Switching Protocol: Zetag / Magnafloc → CNfloc

1. Grade identification — Confirm your current grade from purchase records or plant documentation. Use the cross-reference tables above.
2. Sample request — Request 1–2 CNfloc candidates via WhatsApp or email. We ship 1 kg DHL samples free within 5 business days.
3. Lab screening — Run a jar test or settling cylinder test on your actual sludge/slurry at operating pH and temperature. Compare settling rate, clarity, and optimal dose to current Zetag/Magnafloc performance. See our jar test guide for methodology.
4. Field trial — Run the best-performing CNfloc grade for 2–4 weeks at full scale. Track polymer dose (kg/dry ton or g/m³), cake solids (%), filtrate TSS (mg/L), and equipment amperage.
5. Conversion decision — If performance matches or exceeds baseline, proceed with commercial contract. No equipment modification required — CNfloc powder uses identical dissolution parameters to Zetag powder.

Key Application Areas

Zetag and Magnafloc together cover virtually every water treatment application. Here is how CNfloc maps to the most common use cases:

• Municipal sludge dewatering (belt press and centrifuge) — Zetag 8160 is published as medium-high charge, high molecular weight, and our candidate there is CNfloc C8005. This is the most widely specified duty in the range, and the bracketing problem it creates — their ladder has a medium-high step ours does not — is set out on our Zetag 8160 equivalent page. See also our municipal WWTP dewatering guide.
• Gold and copper tailings thickening — high molecular weight anionic duty across Australasia, Chile and West Africa. We supply CNfloc 1054 and CNfloc 1054V into this work. Because the Magnafloc grade profiles are not published, send the grade name and a slurry sample and we will test rather than quote a lookup. See our gold mining PAM guide.
• Iron ore tailings — Brazilian and Australian iron ore circuits, typically high molecular weight anionic. CNfloc 1054V is our highest molecular weight anionic grade for this duty. See our iron ore PAM guide.
• Alumina refining (Bayer process) — high pH and high temperature stability are the governing requirements. The manufacturer data sheet we have for Magnafloc 336 gives a qualitative molecular weight description and no charge density figure, which is not enough to map a grade responsibly. Which stage you are dosing matters more than the grade number here, and our red mud and Bayer settling guide sets out where our anionic grades fit and where they do not. Contact us for Bayer-specific recommendations and we will work from your liquor conditions.
• Coal wash clarification — coal circuit water recovery generally calls for lower charge anionic or nonionic PAM. CNfloc 1062 covers the anionic side and CNfloc 1042 the nonionic side. See our coal washing PAM guide.
• Acidic circuits (coal prep, phosphate) — Magnafloc 300 → CNfloc 1003. Nonionic PAM maintains performance at pH <4. See our nonionic PAM guide.

Is BASF still the owner of Zetag and Magnafloc?

BASF acquired the Zetag and Magnafloc brands from Ciba Specialty Chemicals in 2009. In 2019, BASF agreed to divest parts of its water treatment polymer business as a condition of regulatory approvals for other acquisitions. Regional distribution rights shifted to Solenis and other parties in some markets. The model numbers remain in use regardless of who distributes them locally. According to AWWA (American Water Works Association) guidance on polymer evaluation, product performance should be assessed by physical-chemical parameters — not brand name or corporate ownership.

Can the same dissolution tanks be used for CNfloc powder as Zetag powder?

Yes. Both are dry powder PAM requiring the same dissolution procedure: 0.1–0.5% solution, 30–60 minute aging time, low-shear mixing at 200–400 RPM. Flush the system with 2–3 tank volumes of clean water before switching grades. No equipment changes required. For step-by-step dissolution guidance, see our PAM dissolving guide.

Does CNfloc have equivalent quality documentation to Zetag/Magnafloc?

Yes. Each ChinaPAM replacement quote should include the relevant TDS, batch COA (charge density, MW class, solid content, residual monomer), and SDS. For drinking water or food-contact applications, confirm the exact certificate requirement, grade, batch, and destination-market rule before using any regulated-use claim. REACH status and customs documentation should also be confirmed for the destination before shipment.

What if my plant specifies Zetag 8160 by brand name in the tender?

Most public tenders specify "or equivalent", which means the substitution has to be evidenced rather than asserted. The workable route is to submit the candidate grade with its TDS and batch COA plus jar or CST test data from your own stream showing comparable cake solids and polymer dose. We prepare that documentation package at no charge for serious enquiries. We are not going to tell you which grade to put in the submission without seeing the duty first, because that is exactly the shortcut that gets an equivalence claim rejected on technical review. Our Zetag 8160 equivalent page sets out what we can and cannot state on paper for that specific grade, which is the part a technical reviewer will read first.

Which other Zetag and Magnafloc grades do you have a page for?

The four positions asked about most often after 8160 each have their own page, because the answer changes with the family the number belongs to rather than with the brand. On the anionic side, Magnafloc 355 and 355 SSK is the granulated position, and Zetag 4100 DK sits at the lower-charge end of that same family — worth reading if you have assumed every Zetag number is cationic, because the 4000 series is not. On the nonionic side, Magnafloc 351 and 351 SSK covers the streams where anionic charge is wasted or actively unhelpful. For dewatering at the fresher, lower-charge-demand end, Zetag 8127 DL is the cationic page to start from rather than reaching straight for a high-charge grade. Each page states our profile in tier terms against the published descriptors for the grade being replaced, and says plainly where we will not make a claim.

For SNF FLOPAM equivalents (the other most-specified brand), see our FLOPAM cross-reference guide. For Kemira Superfloc equivalents, see our Superfloc alternative guide. For general sourcing, pricing, and logistics from China, see our China PAM supplier guide. Visit our homepage for full product catalog and technical support.