KemSep C-7107 Equivalent Screening (CNfloc C8008)
ChinaPAM can quote a cationic PAM screening route for a confirmed KemSep C-7107 enquiry, led by CNfloc C8008 with C8001 as the one backup. Send the complete model name as printed — the C- prefix included — or a photograph of the drum or bag label, and the enquiry opens. ChinaPAM accepts the enquiry, quotes the screening route, and discusses sample arrangements after the grade and conditions are confirmed.
Supply Route Comparison
Published reference data and the ChinaPAM route for Kemira KemSep C-7107
KemSep is a trademark of Kemira Oyj. ChinaPAM is an independent manufacturer and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, licensed by or a distributor for Kemira. The brand and grade names are used only to identify the incumbent product a buyer is asking about. Charge and molecular-weight descriptors in the held sources are relative labels inside one supplier’s own range. They carry no calibrated numeric relationship to any other supplier’s labels and cannot be converted between ranges. Our products are separately branded ChinaPAM grades and are not licensed copies.
| Parameter | ChinaPAM Supply Route | Kemira KemSep C-7107 |
|---|---|---|
| Product form | Cationic polyacrylamide powder route (CNfloc C8008, backup C8001), prepared on its own make-down procedure | Cationic emulsion polyacrylamide (EPAM), listed for mud dewatering in World Oil 2015, p.21 |
| Charge position | C8008 is the low-charge lane on the ChinaPAM scale; C8001 sits one step up and is held back as the backup only | 10% molar charge in the NREL table — low on that table’s own scale. Charge and molecular-weight descriptors in the held sources are relative labels inside one supplier’s own range. They carry no calibrated numeric relationship to any other supplier’s labels and cannot be converted between ranges. |
| Molecular-weight position | Confirmed against the quoted ChinaPAM grade’s own data at quotation | Estimated 10 million in the NREL table, described there as an estimate rather than a specification |
| Published trial behaviour | Established on your feed by controlled trial; nothing is predicted from the published tables | The NREL row for C-7107 carries no flocs-formed check mark. That is a study-specific observation under that study’s conditions, not a general statement about the product. |
| Formulation | A separately branded ChinaPAM grade | Unknown. No identical-formula or drop-in claim is made in either direction. |
| Numeric cross-vendor alignment | Not claimed | Not established. The two charge scales are not calibrated against one another. |
| Current availability | Confirmed in the quotation against grade, destination and order conditions | Current Kemira supplier and manufacturer status for the branded grade is recorded as unknown in the held sources, and so is current availability on either side. ChinaPAM makes no statement about the branded product’s present specification. |
| Documents | Applicable document set and TDS availability are confirmed against the quoted ChinaPAM grade; a batch-specific COA is tied to a confirmed shipment only. Price, current stock, lead time and sample dispatch are agreed in the quotation, not stated from the source documents. | Held evidence is a trade-press listing and two public laboratory reports, none of which is a current commercial specification |
Specifications
| Incumbent Model | Kemira KemSep C-7107 (complete model name, C- prefix retained) |
| Screening Basis | Same-chemistry cationic PAM powder route; charge band established from the NREL data; fit confirmed by bench test. |
| Incumbent Product Form | Cationic emulsion polyacrylamide (EPAM) per World Oil 2015, p.21 |
| Incumbent Charge Position | Low — 10% molar charge in the NREL table (supplier-relative) |
| Incumbent MW Position | Medium — estimated 10 million in the NREL table (supplier-relative) |
| ChinaPAM Screening Route | CNfloc C8008 screened first; CNfloc C8001 as the single backup |
| Route Boundary | One screening route plus at most one backup. No exact equivalence, no performance guarantee. |
| Cross-Vendor Numeric Alignment | Not established — labels sit on separate supplier scales |
| Formulation Match | Unknown and not claimed |
| Manufacturing Entity For This Exact Route | Not claimed at model level |
| Current Availability (Either Side) | Unknown in the held sources; confirmed only in a quotation |
| Acceptance Basis | Controlled same-feed trial on normalised active-polymer dose |
Key Features
- A commercial answer on the exact model, not a redirect to a generic cationic listing
- The NREL row published as it stands — 10% molar charge, estimated 10 million MW, and no flocs-formed check mark on that line
- Low-charge identity treated as load-bearing: C8008 leads, and the medium-charge sibling route is not offered as interchangeable
- C- prefix and complete model name carried through the whole enquiry instead of shortened to 7107
- Form change stated plainly: the incumbent is an emulsion, the screened route is a different form with its own make-down
- Two documented failure modes, each with the cheap check that catches it before bulk
- Open questions listed rather than closed with language — numeric band alignment, formulation and performance all stay unknown until tested
Applications
- Drilling-mud dewatering supplier qualification where the incumbent is named as KemSep C-7107
- Low-charge cationic screening when a bag or drum label, TDS or tender line names the complete model
- Emulsion-to-powder form review before dosing pumps and make-down equipment are sized
- Corn-stover hydrolysate and comparable low-charge cationic duties, screened on their own feed rather than from a published table
- Correcting an enquiry that was routed to a medium-charge grade without a charge-demand check
Get a Quote for Kemira KemSep C-7107 Alternative Supply
Send the complete model name with its C- prefix, or a photo of the label. That is enough to open the enquiry; feed conditions and your incumbent active dose sharpen the screening route and the trial plan.
Related Articles
The supply answer first: C8008 leads, C8001 backs it up
A confirmed KemSep C-7107 enquiry gets a cationic PAM screening route from ChinaPAM. CNfloc C8008 is screened first because it is the low-charge lane, and CNfloc C8001 is held as the single backup. That is the commercial answer and it does not wait on anything else being proved.
The state of this page is same-type screening. It is not a claim that ChinaPAM supplies the branded KemSep grade, and it is not a drop-in equivalent. The primary-and-backup ordering reflects available ChinaPAM grade data and the order the sources set out, not demonstrated superiority of one grade over the other.
ChinaPAM accepts the enquiry, quotes the screening route, and discusses sample arrangements after the grade and conditions are confirmed. Price, stock and delivery belong to the quotation and are not stated from the source documents.
Identity lock: the complete model name, prefix included
The C- prefix is part of the canonical model name and the enquiry carries it through unchanged. A line reading 7107 on its own is ambiguous, and the KemSep range separates its siblings by exactly this kind of short string, so a photograph of the drum or bag label is worth more here than a retyped grade.
The current TDS, if the buyer holds one, is read alongside the label rather than assumed from this page. Siblings are not merged: the low-charge and medium-charge members of this family are handled as separate enquiries with separate screening routes.
Current Kemira supplier and manufacturer status for the branded grade is recorded as unknown in the held sources, and so is current availability on either side. ChinaPAM makes no statement about the branded product’s present specification.
Three facts the held sources actually establish
Everything below is tied to a specific page of a specific held document. Nothing is inferred from a resale listing or a search snippet.
| Fact | Where it comes from | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| C-7107 is a cationic emulsion polyacrylamide (EPAM) listed for drilling-mud dewatering. | World Oil, 2015, page 21. | It fixes the form and the duty family only. It carries no numeric charge, no MW figure and no performance claim. |
| A published NREL table records the product at 10% molar charge with an estimated molecular weight of 10 million, and that row carries no flocs-formed check mark. | NREL/TP-5100-65278, page 1, lines 197–203. | The MW figure is an estimate, the charge figure sits on that table’s own scale, and the missing check mark is a study-specific observation rather than a general product property. |
| A DOE/NREL Solid Lignin Recovery table identifies C-7107 as a cationic PAM in two separately listed corn-stover hydrolysate contexts. | DOE/NREL Solid Lignin Recovery, 2023, page 12. | It confirms the cationic identity across a second public document. It does not transfer that study’s dosage, pH window or outcome to any other feed. |
What is matched, what stays open, and the intake that narrows it
The difference matrix above is the honest version: form and charge direction are readable from the sources, while numeric cross-vendor alignment, formulation and process performance are not. Those three stay recorded as unknown and test-required rather than being argued into agreement.
Useful intake, in the order it helps: feed source and what produces it; solids percentage; pH; temperature; conductivity or salinity; the biological-versus-primary share of the solids where that applies; the incumbent active dose, stated as active polymer rather than solution volume; current make-down concentration and maturation time; the dewatering or separation equipment in use; and the acceptance targets you are actually judged against.
The complete label alone opens the enquiry. The rest sharpens the screening route and the trial design, and it is the fastest way to stop a trial being run at the wrong dose basis.
Preparation: an emulsion and a powder are not the same handling job
The incumbent here is an emulsion. The screened ChinaPAM route is a powder, which means a separate dissolution and maturation step rather than a volumetric inversion in the existing make-up train. Treating the two as one handling job is the most common and most expensive mistake on this changeover.
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.
Each product is prepared under its own applicable instructions, and the comparison is then made at a calibrated active dose. Comparing two products at matched solution volume compares them at different real doses.
Two failure modes, and the check that catches each one
Both of these come out of the evidence held for this specific model rather than from general advice, and both are cheap to verify before any bulk commitment.
| Trigger | Consequence | Verification step |
|---|---|---|
| The powder route is fed through the incumbent emulsion make-down train without redesigning dissolution and maturation. | Incomplete wetting, an invalid active-dose comparison and fouling of the make-up or dosing equipment. | Run a separate powder make-down inside the approved 1–3 g/L window, 5 g/L maximum, no longer than 60 minutes; then compare on a calibrated active dose rather than on solution volume. |
| The low-charge identity is replaced with a medium- or high-charge route without checking the feed’s charge demand and pH. | Under-neutralisation or charge reversal, which shows up as worse filtrate turbidity, poorer solids capture and worse cake release. | Walk the charge ladder: C8008 first, C8001 as the backup only. Record pH, zeta potential where it is available, filtrate turbidity, captured solids and cake dryness at each step. |
Trial design and the acceptance metrics that settle it
The trial runs on the same feed, the same equipment and the same time window for both products, on an active-polymer basis, with a controlled dose ladder rather than a single point. The NREL and DOE dosage and pH conditions are not transferred onto your feed: those studies describe their own conditions and nothing else.
Agree the acceptance metrics before the first jar is poured — the settling or dewatering measure that actually governs the duty, filtrate turbidity, captured solids, cake dryness, throughput, active dose and handling behaviour. Record the conditions that failed as carefully as the ones that passed; a dose-response curve tells you whether a route has usable headroom, where a single pass or fail does not.
If identity, product form or acceptance data conflict, the proposed route is rejected and the requirement is checked again against the original model, duty and trial target before another route is offered. Applicable document set and TDS availability are confirmed against the quoted ChinaPAM grade; a batch-specific COA is tied to a confirmed shipment only. Price, current stock, lead time and sample dispatch are agreed in the quotation, not stated from the source documents.
Brand Equivalents & Replacements
ChinaPAM accepts a confirmed KemSep C-7107 enquiry and screens its own cationic PAM powder route against it, led by CNfloc C8008 with C8001 held as the single backup. Screening by held documents and your stated application conditions comes first, then a quotation, and sample arrangements are discussed from there. Nothing on this page is a tested replacement or an equivalent-performance statement: only a controlled same-feed trial can confirm whether the screened route works on your duty.
| Brand | Grade | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Kemira KemSep | C-7107 | Cationic emulsion PAM for mud dewatering (World Oil 2015, p.21); NREL table records 10% molar charge and an estimated 10 million MW with no flocs-formed check mark on that row. ChinaPAM screens CNfloc C8008 first and holds C8001 as the single backup. Same-type screening only. |
Need a replacement for a different grade? Contact us with your current product specs.
Frequently Asked Questions — KemSep C-7107 Equivalent Screening (CNfloc C8008)
Can ChinaPAM supply for a KemSep C-7107 requirement?
Yes — as a same-type cationic screening route, led by CNfloc C8008 with CNfloc C8001 as the single backup. Send the complete model name including the C- prefix, or a photo of the label, and the enquiry opens. What is not offered is a claim that ChinaPAM supplies the branded KemSep grade, or that any ChinaPAM grade is a drop-in replacement for it.
Why does the route start at C8008 rather than a higher-charge grade?
Because the held NREL table records C-7107 at 10% molar charge, which is the low position on that table’s own scale, and C8008 is the low-charge lane in the ChinaPAM range. C8001 sits one step up and is held as the backup rather than offered first. The ordering follows available ChinaPAM grade data and the source evidence; it is not a statement that one grade performs better than the other.
Is a ChinaPAM grade equivalent to C-7107 at 10% molar charge and 10 million MW?
No, and that is not claimed anywhere on this page. Those two figures belong to the NREL table and to that table’s own scales — the MW value is even recorded there as an estimate. Charge and molecular-weight descriptors from two different suppliers carry no calibrated relationship, so they cannot be converted or declared equal. The band question is settled by a controlled same-feed trial, not by reading two numbers side by side.
The NREL row for C-7107 has no flocs-formed check mark. What does that mean?
It means that under the conditions of that specific study, that row was not marked. It is a study-specific observation, not a general property of the product and not a basis for ruling it in or out on your feed. It is published here because it is part of the row, and because hiding it would make the evidence look stronger than it is.
Our incumbent is an emulsion. Can we dose a powder route through the same equipment?
Not without redesigning the dissolution and maturation step. An emulsion inverts in the make-up train; a powder has to be wetted, dissolved and matured first. Pushing a powder through an emulsion make-down gives incomplete wetting, an invalid dose comparison and fouling. 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.
What is confirmed in the quotation, and what is not stated here?
The quotation confirms the screening route, sample arrangements, the applicable document set, packing and delivery against your selected grade, destination and order conditions. Applicable document set and TDS availability are confirmed against the quoted ChinaPAM grade; a batch-specific COA is tied to a confirmed shipment only. Price, current stock, lead time and sample dispatch are agreed in the quotation, not stated from the source documents.
Related Products
Trademark notice. Kemira KemSep C-7107 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. Grade descriptors quoted for third-party products are taken from each manufacturer’s own published literature and follow that manufacturer’s own scale; we do not publish figures those manufacturers do not publish. Performance on your process should be confirmed by jar test or CST test before any change of supply.