Rheomax DR 1050 Equivalent — Anionic PAM Powder Screening for Copper Tailings
ChinaPAM can accept a Rheomax DR 1050 enquiry and move to an anionic polyacrylamide powder screening route once the full label, the tailings stream and the recycle-water chemistry are confirmed. Send the exact label as printed — the DR designation and the 1050 number together — and the enquiry opens. ChinaPAM will review the screening bracket, arrange a trial on your own tailings and process water, and discuss sample arrangements after intake.
Supply Route Comparison
Published reference data and the ChinaPAM route for Rheomax DR 1050
RHEOMAX 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 historical 2011 BASF safety data sheet and two separate BASF site case studies — they are not ChinaPAM documents, they establish nothing about ChinaPAM, and the 2011 revision is not a current brand-owner specification. Our products are separately branded ChinaPAM grades and are not licensed copies.
| Parameter | ChinaPAM Supply Route | Rheomax DR 1050 |
|---|---|---|
| Product form | Anionic polyacrylamide powder; grade selected after feed intake and a trial on your material | Powder — BASF safety data sheet version 1.0, 2011-04-20, PDF pages 2, 3 and 5 (historical revision) |
| Ionic type | Anionic; the position within the anionic range is set by the trial, not pre-assigned | Anionic polyacrylamide — same 2011 safety data sheet |
| Charge position | Decided by feed intake and trial | UNKNOWN from the accepted primary records — identity and form only |
| Molecular-weight position | Decided by feed intake and trial | UNKNOWN from the accepted primary records — no molecular-weight tier published |
| Documented performance — copper/gold tailings site | Measured on your own tailings against your pre-agreed acceptance targets; no figure is carried in from another site | BASF copper/gold tailings case (pages 3-4): water recovery up by 14 Gallon/DMT, underflow density 57% to 64% wt/wt, flocculant use reduced 34%. One site, its own feed and equipment. |
| Documented performance — high-clay copper site | Measured on your own tailings and process water; the clay fraction is a test input, not an assumption | Separate BASF Chile case: a six-month laboratory selection programme led to the exact model in high-clay copper tailings, with 7% more water recovery and 5% higher daily productivity reported at that one mine. |
| 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 | Unknown in the accepted primary records |
| 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 historical 2011 BASF safety data sheet and two separate BASF site case studies — not ChinaPAM documents and not current brand-owner specifications |
Specifications
| Incumbent Model | Rheomax DR 1050 (retain the full DR designation; do not merge with any other Rheomax number) |
| Ionic Type | Anionic polyacrylamide — BASF safety data sheet version 1.0, 2011-04-20 (historical revision) |
| Physical Form (Incumbent) | Powder — same 2011 safety data sheet, PDF pages 2, 3 and 5 |
| Document Status | Historical: the safety data sheet revision is dated 2011-04-20 and the current specification must be rechecked against a current supplier document |
| Charge Band | UNKNOWN from accepted primary records; the held documents establish identity and form only |
| MW Band | UNKNOWN from accepted primary records; no molecular-weight tier is published in the held documents |
| Documented Duty (Cases) | Copper/gold tailings thickening, high-clay copper tailings, process-water recovery — two separate BASF site cases |
| ChinaPAM Route | Anionic polyacrylamide powder screening route; grade selected after feed intake and a trial on the buyer's own tailings and process water |
| Route Boundary | No single grade is named before jar and thickener testing on the actual tailings |
| Current Availability (Either Side) | Unknown in the held sources; confirmed only in a quotation |
Key Features
- Anionic polyacrylamide powder identity for the exact model taken from the BASF safety data sheet, with its 2011 revision date stated rather than passed off as current
- Written for the copper and copper/gold tailings duty the two BASF cases document, including the high-clay feed condition
- Clay fraction, solids loading and recycle-water chemistry treated as the governing selection variables, not the brand name
- Charge and molecular weight kept open because the held documents do not publish either — the trial on your own tailings decides the route
- The full anionic powder range reviewed on enquiry, with every matching grade eligible until feed and trial data narrow it
- Each case percentage kept with its own site; the two BASF cases describe different plants and are never pooled into one claim
- Only the pages of the copper/gold case that name the exact model are used; the heading for a different product number on a later page is excluded
- Two evidence-based failure modes surfaced, each with a verification step that catches it before bulk commitment
Applications
- Anionic powder selection for a confirmed Rheomax DR 1050 purchase requirement
- Copper and copper/gold tailings thickening where underflow density and water recovery are the operating constraints
- High-clay copper tailings, where the clay fraction rather than the model name governs the selection
- Process-water and recycle-water recovery duties screened on the buyer's own tailings and water after intake
Get a Quote for Rheomax DR 1050 Alternative Supply
Send the full label as printed, including the DR designation, or a photo of the bag. Clay fraction, solids loading, recycle-water salinity and iron, pH and your incumbent active dose are what sharpen the bracket and the trial plan.
Related Articles
The supply answer first: an anionic powder screening route, no single grade pre-named
A confirmed Rheomax DR 1050 enquiry gets an anionic polyacrylamide powder screening route from ChinaPAM. ChinaPAM reviews the label and the process conditions, issues the applicable product documents for whichever route is quoted, and arranges a selection trial on your own tailings and process water. That is the commercial answer, and it is a selection and supply service rather than branded stock or an equivalence claim.
No single grade is named up front. The held documents establish that the incumbent is an anionic polyacrylamide powder, but they publish no reliable charge density and no molecular-weight tier. The evidence behind this model actually argues for testing: the BASF Chile case describes a six-month laboratory programme evaluating multiple flocculants before one was selected for a high-clay copper tailings duty. A route chosen from a name, without that work, is not a qualified route.
Price, stock and lead time belong to the quotation and are not stated from the held documents.
Identity lock: the full Rheomax DR 1050 name, and the 2011 document date
Send the incumbent name in full: Rheomax DR 1050, with the DR designation intact. Other numbers in that brand family are separate products with their own evidence and are not treated as interchangeable with 1050 here.
The safety data sheet behind the identity statement on this page is version 1.0 dated 2011-04-20. That is a historical revision, not a current specification, so the current supplier TDS or safety data sheet that you hold is what governs the comparison. Ask for it, and send it with the label.
One further boundary worth stating plainly: the copper/gold tailings case document carries a heading for a different product number on a later page. Only the pages that name the exact model are used on this page, and the other number is not read into the 1050 record.
Three facts the sources actually establish
Each fact below is tied to a specific document and locator, and each stays inside its own site context.
| Fact | Source | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| The BASF safety data sheet identifies the exact model RHEOMAX 1050 as an anionic polyacrylamide in powder form. | BASF safety data sheet, version 1.0 dated 2011-04-20, PDF pages 2, 3 and 5. | A historical revision. It is not a current brand-owner specification, and it gives no charge density, no molecular weight and no formula. The current specification must be rechecked against a current supplier document. |
| A BASF copper/gold tailings case reports water recovery rising by 14 Gallon/DMT, underflow density moving from 57% to 64% wt/wt, and flocculant use reduced by 34%. | BASF copper/gold tailings case study for the exact model, PDF page 4 (pages 3-4 only). | One site under its own feed, water and equipment. Not a transferable target and not a result ChinaPAM offers. The heading for a different product number on a later page of the same document is excluded. |
| A separate BASF Chile case reports that a six-month laboratory selection programme led to RHEOMAX DR 1050 in high-clay copper tailings, with 7% more water recovery and 5% higher daily productivity. | BASF Chile case record for the exact model. | A single mine. The percentages are not generalised, are not pooled with the other case, and are not a promise for a new plant. What does carry over is the method: multi-candidate testing on the actual material. |
Two failure modes and the check that catches each one
Both come out of the held evidence for this specific model and these tailings duties.
| Trigger | Consequence | Verification step |
|---|---|---|
| A route is chosen from the brand and model name alone, without testing the actual clay fraction, solids loading and recycle-water chemistry. The Chile case records a six-month multi-flocculant evaluation before a selection was made for high-clay copper tailings, and the wider family evidence places these products in challenging saline and high-iron environments. | Settling can look acceptable in the jar while underflow density, water recovery or pumpability misses the plant target. | Use your own ore or tailings and your own process water. Record clay and solids content, pH, salinity and iron, settling rate, supernatant clarity, underflow density and yield stress, and pumpability. |
| The 14 Gallon/DMT, 34% dose reduction, 7% recovery or 5% productivity figures are treated as promised results for a new plant. The two case documents describe separate sites in different operating contexts. | The procurement specification turns into a copied marketing target instead of a verified operating window, and the acceptance decision is made against numbers that were never measured on your material. | Set a site baseline first, run a blinded dose ladder against the incumbent, and accept only the deltas you agreed in advance under matched feed and equipment conditions. |
Route boundary: why the whole anionic powder range stays open
What the sources fix is the incumbent identity — an anionic polyacrylamide powder, per a historical 2011 revision — and the duties where the exact model has documented site evidence: copper/gold tailings thickening, high-clay copper tailings and process-water recovery. What they do not fix is charge density, molecular weight, formula or cross-vendor tolerance. Those unknowns stay visible on this page and stay test-required.
All 26 anionic powder records in the ChinaPAM range were reviewed against this enquiry. Every matching anionic powder stays eligible until feed and trial data select one primary and one backup route.
One primary and one backup route are named only after the feed data and the trial results support them. On a high-clay feed in particular, the clay fraction and the recycle-water chemistry do more to decide the outcome than any name-level match.
Intake, preparation, trial design and acceptance metrics
Useful intake, in order: ore or tailings type; solids percentage; particle-size distribution and the clay fraction; pH; conductivity or salinity; iron, calcium and magnesium where relevant; the incumbent product and its active dose stated as active polymer; current make-down concentration and maturation time; thickener feedwell and shear conditions; and the acceptance targets the duty is judged by.
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.
Before any product comparison, settle the preparation: confirm powder wetting and dispersion, full maturation time, solution age at the point of application, transfer shear from pumps and piping, and the calibrated active concentration actually reaching the process.
The trial uses the same representative feed and the same process water for the incumbent and for the ChinaPAM candidates, with a controlled dose ladder and repeated measurements. Recycle water matters here rather than clean make-up water, because salinity and iron are part of what the route has to survive. Normal and adverse feed conditions both belong in the matrix.
Pre-agree the acceptance metrics before the first jar: settling rate, overflow clarity or turbidity, underflow solids density and yield stress, water recovery, throughput, pumpability, active dose and operational stability. Record the conditions where a candidate fails as carefully as the conditions where it performs best.
Go/no-go: proceed to quotation only after the identity is locked and testing on your own material supports the route. Every percentage stays attributed to the site it came from. If the identity stays unresolved or the trial results conflict, the candidate stops there and goes back for review rather than being named as a route. 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 Rheomax DR 1050 enquiry and screens its own anionic powder range against it. No single grade is named in advance, because the published sources do not fix a reliable charge or molecular-weight band for the incumbent — the trial on your own tailings and process water selects the route. Nothing on this page is a tested replacement or an equivalent-performance statement.
| Brand | Grade | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| BASF Rheomax | Rheomax DR 1050 | BASF safety data sheet version 1.0 dated 2011-04-20 (PDF pages 2, 3 and 5) identifies the exact model as an anionic polyacrylamide powder; the revision is historical. A BASF copper/gold tailings case (pages 3-4) and a separate BASF Chile high-clay copper case each report their own site results. No charge, no molecular weight, no current availability. ChinaPAM offers an anionic powder screening route. Screening only. |
Need a replacement for a different grade? Contact us with your current product specs.
Frequently Asked Questions — Rheomax DR 1050 Equivalent — Anionic PAM Powder Screening for Copper Tailings
Can ChinaPAM supply for a Rheomax DR 1050 requirement?
Yes — ChinaPAM screens its anionic polyacrylamide powder range against a Rheomax DR 1050 requirement. Send the full label as printed, or a bag photo, and the enquiry opens. ChinaPAM will review the screening route, arrange a trial on your own tailings and process water, and discuss sample arrangements. No drop-in or identical-formula claim is made.
Why is no specific ChinaPAM grade pre-named for Rheomax DR 1050?
Because the held documents establish identity and form — an anionic polyacrylamide powder — but not a reliable charge density or molecular-weight band. The incumbent's own evidence makes the point: a BASF Chile case describes a six-month laboratory programme evaluating multiple flocculants before one was selected for high-clay copper tailings. The matching anionic powder range stays eligible, and the trial on your material selects the primary and backup route.
The safety data sheet says anionic polyacrylamide powder. Is that the current specification?
It is the identity from BASF safety data sheet version 1.0 dated 2011-04-20 — a historical revision. It is reliable for what the product is, not for what the current specification says today. Recheck against the current supplier TDS or safety data sheet you hold, and send that alongside the label.
Can I hold ChinaPAM to the 34% flocculant reduction or the 7% water recovery figure?
No, and this is the misreading that does the most damage to a procurement specification. Those figures come from two different BASF site cases in different operating contexts — the 14 Gallon/DMT, 57% to 64% underflow and 34% dose reduction from one copper/gold tailings site, the 7% recovery and 5% productivity from a separate high-clay copper mine. They are not pooled, not generalised and not promised. Set your own site baseline and accept only the deltas measured on your material.
My tailings are high in clay. Does the model name tell me the route will work?
No. Clay fraction, solids loading and recycle-water chemistry decide the outcome, and a name-level match does not predict them. A route selected without testing those variables can settle convincingly in a jar and still miss the plant target on underflow density, water recovery or pumpability. Test on your own tailings with your own process water, not clean make-up water.
I have seen another product number on the same case study document. Does it cover 1050?
No. That heading appears on a later page of the copper/gold case document and refers to a different product. Only the pages that name the exact model are used here, and the other number is not read into the 1050 record. If your bags carry that other number, send the label and the enquiry is routed to the evidence that actually covers it.
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. Rheomax DR 1050 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 BASF safety data sheet version 1.0 dated 2011-04-20 and to two separate BASF site case studies; the 2011 revision is carried as a historical document and is not presented as a current brand-owner specification. Performance on your process should be confirmed by jar test or CST test before any change of supply.