Alclar HP21 Equivalent — Same-Type Anionic PAM Powder Screening for Red Mud
ChinaPAM has anionic polyacrylamide powder grades sitting in broad high-molecular-weight and high-charge bands that overlap the published position of Alclar HP21, and can screen them against your actual Bayer-process duty. That is same-type screening on your own red mud rather than an exact replacement: the published charge figure for the incumbent belongs to its own source and does not make any ChinaPAM grade its equal. Send the Bayer stage, the mud solids, the liquor alkalinity, the temperature and your current dose, and ChinaPAM will propose the smallest practical comparison.
Supply Route Comparison
Published reference data and the ChinaPAM route for Alclar HP21
ALCLAR is a trademark of its respective owner. ChinaPAM is an independent manufacturer and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, licensed by or a distributor for the brand owner. The grade name is used only to identify the product a buyer is comparing. The documents cited on this page are a 2017 third-party research paper and a publisher-indexed table — they are not ChinaPAM documents, they establish nothing about ChinaPAM, and they are not a current brand-owner specification. Our products are separately branded ChinaPAM grades and are not licensed copies.
| Parameter | ChinaPAM Supply Route | Alclar HP21 |
|---|---|---|
| Product form | Anionic polyacrylamide powder; grade selected from the broad-band bracket after intake and same-mud testing | Powder flocculant — 2017 HOLOS paper, PDF page 4 |
| Ionic type | Anionic | Anionic polyacrylamide — publisher-indexed table, corroborated by the 2017 paper |
| Charge position | Broad high-charge band; the band overlaps the published figure but does not reproduce it, and no ChinaPAM number is matched to it | 90% charge density per the publisher-indexed table. Source-specific; it does not create a cross-vendor equivalence. |
| Molecular-weight position | Broad high-molecular-weight band; the position inside it is decided by same-mud testing | High molecular weight per the publisher-indexed table (source-specific descriptor) |
| Chain architecture | Not matched to the incumbent. A broad-band overlap does not prove the same chain architecture or the same process response. | Not disclosed beyond the published descriptors |
| Published test context | Reproduced as the plant's own condition — your solution concentration, make-down water and alkalinity, aging and mixing | 0.02% solution, 33 g/L red mud near 95°C, 15-35 g/t, with settling, ten-minute compaction and overflow turbidity measured — 2017 HOLOS paper, one published laboratory context only |
| Dose response | Mapped on your mud across replicated dose steps, with settling and turbidity scored together | Settling rate and overflow turbidity both change materially across 15-35 g/t; the paper warns faster settling can leave fines uncaptured — HOLOS Figures 1 and 2 |
| Formulation | Separately branded ChinaPAM grade | Not disclosed in the held documents. No identical-formula claim in either direction. |
| Current availability | Confirmed in the quotation against grade, destination and order conditions | Not established — the held sources are research publications and a direct publisher fetch returned 403 |
| Documents | Current price, stock status, lead time, applicable TDS and sample arrangements are confirmed in the quotation. Batch-specific COA terms are confirmed with the shipment. | A 2017 third-party research paper and a publisher-indexed table — not ChinaPAM documents and not current brand-owner specifications |
Specifications
| Incumbent Model | Alclar HP21 (send the exact model and any suffix as printed; other Alclar names are separate enquiries) |
| Ionic Type | Anionic polyacrylamide — publisher-indexed table, corroborated by the 2017 HOLOS paper |
| Physical Form (Incumbent) | Powder flocculant — 2017 HOLOS paper, PDF page 4 |
| MW Position (Source) | High molecular weight — publisher-indexed table (source-specific descriptor) |
| Charge Density (Source) | 90% — publisher-indexed table only; source-specific and not a cross-vendor equivalence basis |
| Document Status | Historical BASF research (2017) plus publisher-indexed content; current exact availability is not established |
| Published Test Context | 0.02% solution, 33 g/L red mud near 95°C, 15-35 g/t — one published laboratory context, not a dose recommendation |
| ChinaPAM Route | Same-type screening: anionic powder grades from overlapping broad high-MW / high-charge bands, screened on your actual Bayer duty |
| Route Boundary | Five grades in a first-pass broad-band bracket; no primary or backup named before same-mud testing |
| Current Availability (Either Side) | Unknown in the held sources; confirmed only in a quotation |
Key Features
- Exact-model identity for HP21 taken from a 2017 research paper authored with BASF Mining Solutions participation, with its research role and date stated
- Anionic, high-molecular-weight and 90% charge position carried from the publisher-indexed table, with the figure kept inside its own source rather than matched to a ChinaPAM number
- Same-type screening stated plainly: ChinaPAM grades sit in overlapping broad bands, which is a starting point for testing and not proof of the same charge or chain architecture
- Five ChinaPAM grades held in a first-pass broad-band bracket, with the choice between them made on your own red mud
- Settling rate and overflow turbidity scored together at every dose, because the research records that the two move against each other
- The published 0.02% solution, 33 g/L, 95°C and 15-35 g/t conditions reproduced only as a test context to match, never issued as a dose specification
- Stage-specific testing required rather than assumed, since bauxite mineralogy, washer solids, alkalinity, hematite and goethite fractions and particle size all shift the result
- Two evidence-based failure modes surfaced, each with a verification step that catches it before bulk commitment
Applications
- Same-type anionic powder screening for a confirmed Alclar HP21 purchase requirement
- Bayer-process red-mud sedimentation where settling rate and overflow clarity have to pass together
- Hot caustic red-mud duties where liquor alkalinity and temperature are part of the test condition, not a footnote
- Stage-specific screening across bauxite sources, where mineralogy and washer solids differ enough to need their own tests
Get a Quote for Alclar HP21 Alternative Supply
A mud sample plus solids, liquor alkalinity, temperature and your current dose is enough to start. A current label or TDS works too. ChinaPAM will identify anything missing once, then propose the smallest practical comparison matrix.
Related Articles
The supply answer first: same-type screening from overlapping broad bands
ChinaPAM has anionic polyacrylamide powder grades sitting in broad high-molecular-weight and high-charge bands that overlap the published position of Alclar HP21, and can screen them against your actual Bayer-process duty. That is the supply answer, and it is same-type screening rather than an exact replacement.
The difference matters commercially. The incumbent has an exact published identity: anionic, high molecular weight, 90% charge density, powder form, named in BASF-participating research for Bayer red-mud sedimentation. ChinaPAM records cover broad bands. A band that contains that figure is a sound reason to start testing; it is not evidence of the same charge, the same chain architecture or the same response in a hot caustic settler. Five grades stay in the first-pass bracket, and the mud decides between them.
Price, stock and lead time belong to the quotation and are not stated from the research sources.
First screen: what the published identity does and does not settle
The exact model name is Alclar HP21. Send it as printed, with any suffix your bags carry. Other Alclar names are separate enquiries with their own evidence, and none of them inherits HP21's published figures.
The 90% charge density value comes from a publisher-indexed table and is specific to that source. It describes the incumbent on the publisher's own basis. It is not a conversion factor, not a target for a ChinaPAM grade, and not something this page restates as a ChinaPAM specification.
The research behind the identity is historical: the paper dates from 2017, and a direct fetch of the publisher record returned 403, so current exact availability of the incumbent is not established here either. If you hold a current label or TDS, send it — it governs over the research description.
Four facts the sources actually establish
Each fact below is tied to a specific document and locator.
| Fact | Source | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| The 2017 HOLOS paper, authored with BASF Mining Solutions participation, explicitly identifies Alclar HP21 among BASF powder flocculants tested for Bayer red-mud sedimentation. | 2017 HOLOS paper, PDF page 4. | Historical BASF research. Current exact availability of the grade remains unknown, and the paper is not a brand-owner specification sheet. |
| The test prepared a 0.02% flocculant solution and used a 33 g/L red-mud sample near 95°C at 15-35 g/t, measuring settling, ten-minute compaction and overflow turbidity. | 2017 HOLOS paper, PDF page 4. | A published laboratory context only. It is not a universal dose recommendation and not a starting specification for your washer or settler. |
| A publisher-indexed table identifies Alclar HP21 as a BASF anionic polyacrylamide with high molecular weight and 90% charge density. | Publisher-indexed table, DOI 10.1016/j.mineng.2026.110550, corroborated with the HOLOS paper. | Source-specific descriptors. They create no cross-vendor equivalence, and a direct publisher fetch returned 403 so current availability is not established. |
| HOLOS Figures 1 and 2 show HP21's settling rate and overflow turbidity changing materially across the 15-35 g/t range, and the text warns that faster settling can increase overflow turbidity by leaving fines uncaptured. | 2017 HOLOS paper, PDF page 5. | A process trade-off to design around, not a guaranteed numerical curve for another mud or another stage. |
Two failure modes and the check that catches each one
Both come straight out of the research held for this grade and this duty.
| Trigger | Consequence | Verification step |
|---|---|---|
| Selection optimises settling rate alone. The research reports that the higher-settling flocculants also produced higher overflow turbidity, because the fine particles had less capture time. | The mud descends quickly while overflow clarity becomes unacceptable and the liquor is contaminated — a result that reads as a success on one metric and a failure on the duty. | Score settling rate and overflow turbidity jointly at every dose. A faster settling result does not pass if clarity fails. |
| A grade or a dose is copied across bauxite sources or washer stages without matched testing. The paper names bauxite specification, washer solids, alkalinity, hematite and goethite content and particle size as performance variables and calls for sedimentation tests on each process. | Charge and molecular-weight fit, dose, compaction and clarity can all shift at once, so the route that worked on one stage misses on the next. | Run stage-specific hot red-mud tests using the current solids, alkalinity and mineralogy for that stage rather than carrying a result across. |
Route boundary: five grades in, none named yet
The incumbent has exact published facts; the ChinaPAM side has broad bands. That asymmetry is the whole reason this page screens rather than substitutes. The broad bands do not prove the same charge, the same chain architecture or the same process response, and this page does not claim they do.
Five ChinaPAM grades remain in the first-pass broad-band bracket after the full anionic powder range was reviewed against this enquiry. No primary and no backup is named before testing on your own red mud, and no ChinaPAM number is paired with the 90% figure.
The practical route is a screen of those five candidates against the incumbent on the same mud, with replicated dose steps and fixed mixing, carrying the best two into a hot-process confirmation test at plant-relevant temperature and alkalinity.
Intake, preparation, trial design and acceptance metrics
Useful intake, in order: Bayer stage; bauxite source and mineralogy; red-mud solids; liquor alkalinity; temperature; hematite and goethite fraction; particle-size distribution; your current dose; and the targets you judge the duty by — settling rate, overflow turbidity and underflow density.
Preparation has to reproduce the plant rather than the paper: your solution concentration, your make-down water and its alkalinity, your solution aging and your mixing. The published 0.02% solution, 33 g/L mud near 95°C and 15-35 g/t range are carried here only as one published test context — useful for designing the comparison, not a dose to adopt. ChinaPAM powder preparation runs at a 1–3 g/L recommended window, 5 g/L maximum, and no longer than 60 minutes at working concentration. Preparation concentration is not process dosage.
The screen runs the five broad-band candidates against the incumbent on the same red mud, with replicated dose steps and fixed mixing conditions across all runs. The best two then go into a hot-process confirmation test under plant-relevant temperature and alkalinity, because a result obtained cool does not survive a hot caustic settler unchallenged.
Pre-agree the acceptance metrics before the first test: settling rate, overflow turbidity, underflow compaction and density, the caustic-recovery objective the duty serves, floc robustness and dose. Score them together — optimising one in isolation is the first failure mode on this page.
Go/no-go: a route is proposed only after the exact model is confirmed and the same-mud screen supports it. Quotation, sample plan and the applicable approved documents follow route selection, not precede it. If the results conflict across stages or feeds, the stage gets its own test rather than inheriting another stage's answer. Current price, stock status, lead time, applicable TDS and sample arrangements are confirmed in the quotation. Batch-specific COA terms are confirmed with the shipment.
Brand Equivalents & Replacements
ChinaPAM accepts a confirmed Alclar HP21 enquiry and screens its own anionic powder grades from the overlapping broad high-molecular-weight, high-charge bands against it. Same-type screening on your own red mud is what is on offer here: a broad-band overlap is not proof of the same charge, the same chain architecture or the same process response. Nothing on this page is a tested replacement or an equivalent-performance statement.
| Brand | Grade | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| BASF Alclar | Alclar HP21 | The 2017 HOLOS paper (PDF page 4), authored with BASF Mining Solutions participation, names the exact grade among BASF powder flocculants tested for Bayer red-mud sedimentation. A publisher-indexed table identifies it as a BASF anionic polyacrylamide with high molecular weight and 90% charge density; that value is source-specific. ChinaPAM offers same-type screening from overlapping broad high-MW / high-charge bands. Screening only, not an exact replacement. |
Need a replacement for a different grade? Contact us with your current product specs.
Frequently Asked Questions — Alclar HP21 Equivalent — Same-Type Anionic PAM Powder Screening for Red Mud
Can ChinaPAM supply for an Alclar HP21 requirement?
ChinaPAM has anionic powder grades in overlapping broad high-molecular-weight and high-charge bands, and can screen them against your actual Bayer-process duty. That is same-type screening on your own red mud — a tested route rather than an exact replacement. Send the Bayer stage, mud solids, liquor alkalinity, temperature and your current dose, or start with a current label, and ChinaPAM will propose the smallest practical comparison.
Why is no specific ChinaPAM grade pre-named for Alclar HP21?
Because the evidence is asymmetric. The incumbent has exact published descriptors from research sources; the ChinaPAM records are broad bands. Five grades sit in the first-pass bracket, and a broad band that contains the incumbent's published position is a reason to test, not a reason to name. Testing on your own mud picks the primary and the backup.
The incumbent is listed at 90% charge density. Which ChinaPAM grade matches that number?
None is matched to it, deliberately. That figure comes from one publisher-indexed table and describes the incumbent on that source's own basis. Pairing a ChinaPAM number against it would manufacture an equivalence the sources do not support. What ChinaPAM offers instead is a high-charge band that overlaps the published position, screened on your mud.
Can I use the 15-35 g/t range from the research as my dose?
No. That range belongs to one published laboratory test on a 0.02% solution with a 33 g/L red-mud sample near 95°C. It tells you how the comparison was designed, not what to dose. Reproduce your own plant conditions — solution concentration, make-down water and alkalinity, aging, mixing — and map the dose response on your mud.
If a candidate settles the mud fastest, is that the one to buy?
Not on that basis alone, and this is the misreading the research specifically warns about. The higher-settling flocculants in the study also produced higher overflow turbidity, because the fines had less time to be captured. A fast settling result that fails overflow clarity contaminates the liquor. Score settling and turbidity together at every dose, alongside underflow compaction.
We run several washer stages. Can one screening result cover them all?
No. The research names bauxite specification, washer solids, alkalinity, hematite and goethite content and particle size as the variables that move performance, and calls for sedimentation tests per process. Charge and molecular-weight fit, dose, compaction and clarity can all shift between stages. Each stage gets its own hot red-mud test with its current solids, alkalinity and mineralogy.
What is confirmed in the quotation, and what is not stated here?
Current price, stock status, lead time, applicable TDS and sample arrangements are confirmed in the quotation. Batch-specific COA terms are confirmed with the shipment.
Trademark notice. Alclar HP21 and all other third-party product and brand names on this page are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. Henan Jinghua New Material Technology Co., Ltd. is not affiliated with, endorsed by, sponsored by or authorised by those owners, and no such relationship is implied. Those names are used here for the sole purpose of identifying the products our grades are compared against, which is necessary to describe what we supply. Our products are separately branded ChinaPAM grades and are not licensed copies. Third-party facts on this page are attributed to a 2017 HOLOS research paper authored with BASF Mining Solutions participation and to a publisher-indexed table (DOI 10.1016/j.mineng.2026.110550); both are research publications rather than current brand-owner specifications. Performance on your process should be confirmed by jar test or CST test before any change of supply.