Sourcing Guide Contents
Industrial Clusters: Where to Source 25155-25-3 Manufacturer In China
SourcifyChina B2B Sourcing Report 2026
Deep-Dive Market Analysis: Sourcing 25155-25-3 (Diphenylmethane-4,4′-diisocyanate, MDI) Manufacturers in China
Prepared for: Global Procurement Managers
Date: February 2026
Author: SourcifyChina – Senior Sourcing Consultant
Executive Summary
This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the Chinese manufacturing landscape for CAS No. 25155-25-3, commonly known as 4,4′-Diphenylmethane Diisocyanate (MDI)—a critical raw material used in polyurethane production for industries including automotive, construction, insulation, and furniture.
China is the world’s largest producer and exporter of MDI, accounting for over 45% of global capacity in 2025. The market is highly concentrated, with a few dominant players controlling the majority of output. This report identifies key industrial clusters, evaluates regional manufacturing strengths, and provides a comparative analysis to support strategic sourcing decisions.
1. Overview of 25155-25-3 (MDI) in China
- Chemical Name: 4,4′-Diphenylmethane Diisocyanate (MDI)
- CAS Number: 25155-25-3
- Primary Applications: Polyurethane foams (rigid & flexible), adhesives, sealants, coatings, elastomers
- Annual Production in China (2025): ~4.3 million metric tons
- Key Export Destinations: EU, Southeast Asia, North America, India
China’s MDI sector is characterized by vertical integration, economies of scale, and stringent environmental compliance among top-tier producers. The market is led by Wanhua Chemical, BASF-YPC (joint venture), and CNP (China National Petroleum subsidiaries), with numerous mid-tier suppliers serving niche and regional markets.
2. Key Industrial Clusters for MDI Manufacturing in China
MDI production in China is concentrated in regions with strong petrochemical infrastructure, port access, and government-backed industrial zones. The primary clusters are:
A. Shandong Province
- Core City: Yantai
- Key Player: Wanhua Chemical Group (Global leader, owns ~25% of global MDI capacity)
- Capacity: Over 1.4 million tons/year
- Advantages: Fully integrated chemical complex, export-oriented logistics, R&D-driven quality
B. Jiangsu Province
- Core Cities: Nanjing, Zhenjiang
- Key Players: BASF-YPC Company Ltd. (BASF & Sinopec JV), CNPC Lanzhou Petrochemical (branch operations)
- Capacity: ~800,000 tons/year
- Advantages: Strong foreign joint ventures, high process standards, proximity to Shanghai port
C. Zhejiang Province
- Core City: Ningbo
- Key Players: Zhejiang Wansheng New Material, regional suppliers
- Capacity: ~300,000 tons/year (mostly specialty or modified MDI)
- Advantages: Agile mid-tier suppliers, competitive pricing, strong export logistics
D. Guangdong Province
- Core City: Guangzhou, Foshan
- Key Players: Distributors and compounders (not primary producers)
- Capacity: Minimal primary production; strong downstream processing
- Advantages: Proximity to Southeast Asian markets, high demand for PU products
Note: Guangdong is not a primary manufacturing hub for bulk MDI but serves as a major downstream formulation and distribution center.
3. Regional Comparison: MDI Sourcing by Province
The following table compares key sourcing regions for 25155-25-3 in China based on Price, Quality, and Lead Time—critical KPIs for global procurement managers.
| Region | Price Competitiveness | Quality Level | Average Lead Time (Production to Port) | Key Strengths | Key Risks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shandong | Moderate to High | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Premium) | 10–14 days | Largest capacity, Wanhua dominance, consistent purity (>99.5%) | Less flexible MOQs, longer negotiation cycles |
| Jiangsu | Moderate | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (International Grade) | 12–16 days | BASF joint ventures, ISO/QC certifications, strong compliance | Higher cost vs. national average |
| Zhejiang | High (Competitive) | ⭐⭐⭐½ (Good, varies by supplier) | 7–10 days | Faster turnaround, smaller MOQs, agile suppliers | Quality inconsistency; audit recommended |
| Guangdong | Low (for bulk) | ⭐⭐½ (Downstream only) | 3–5 days (for formulated products) | Fast local delivery, strong logistics network | No primary production; reliance on imports |
Scoring Key:
– Price: High = Competitive pricing; Low = Premium pricing
– Quality: Based on ISO 9001 compliance, purity consistency, and global client base
– Lead Time: From confirmed order to FOB port readiness (Qingdao, Ningbo, Shanghai, or Shenzhen)
4. Strategic Sourcing Recommendations
- For High-Volume, Quality-Critical Procurement:
- Source from Shandong (Yantai) via Wanhua or its authorized distributors.
-
Ensure direct engagement to avoid markups from intermediaries.
-
For Regulated Markets (EU/USA):
-
Prioritize Jiangsu-based suppliers (e.g., BASF-YPC) for REACH, FDA, and TSCA compliance.
-
For Cost-Sensitive or Niche Applications:
-
Evaluate pre-qualified Zhejiang suppliers with third-party audit reports (e.g., SGS, TÜV).
-
Avoid Direct Bulk Sourcing from Guangdong:
- Suitable only for formulated PU systems, not raw MDI. Risk of adulteration or mislabeling.
5. Market Outlook 2026–2028
- Capacity Expansion: Wanhua planning 600,000-ton expansion in Sichuan (2027), diversifying geographic risk.
- Environmental Regulations: Stricter VOC and emission controls may impact smaller Zhejiang-based players.
- Export Trends: Increased shipments to India and Middle East due to infrastructure growth.
- Price Volatility: Linked to benzene and phosgene feedstock prices; recommend hedging or long-term contracts.
Conclusion
China remains the most strategic source for 25155-25-3 (MDI) globally. Shandong and Jiangsu are the preferred regions for reliable, high-quality supply, while Zhejiang offers cost-effective alternatives with due diligence. Procurement managers should align sourcing strategy with volume, quality, compliance, and logistics requirements.
SourcifyChina recommends on-site audits, batch testing, and direct supplier engagement to mitigate risks and optimize total cost of ownership.
Prepared by:
SourcifyChina Sourcing Advisory Team
Empowering Global Procurement with Data-Driven China Sourcing Intelligence
📧 Contact: [email protected] | 🌐 www.sourcifychina.com
Technical Specs & Compliance Guide
SourcifyChina Sourcing Intelligence Report: Technical & Compliance Profile
Report ID: SC-CN-25155-25-3-2026 | Date: January 15, 2026
Prepared For: Global Procurement Managers | Subject: CAS 25155-25-3 (Tris(2,4-di-tert-butylphenyl)phosphite) Manufacturing in China
Executive Summary
CAS 25155-25-3 (Tris(2,4-di-tert-butylphenyl)phosphite) is a high-performance antioxidant additive critical for polymer stabilization (e.g., PP, PE, ABS). Sourcing from China requires rigorous validation of technical specifications and regulatory compliance due to evolving global chemical regulations. Non-compliance with impurity thresholds or regional certifications risks customs rejection, supply chain disruption, and product liability. This report details actionable quality and compliance criteria for 2026 procurement cycles.
Critical Note: Always verify CAS number validity with suppliers. Counterfeit CAS assignments are prevalent in Chinese chemical markets. Confirm substance identity via HPLC/GC-MS before order placement.
I. Technical Specifications & Quality Parameters
Source: ISO 787-2:2023, ASTM D4327-22, and industry-specific polymer additive standards.
| Parameter | Requirement | Test Method | Tolerance Range | Rationale for Procurement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Purity (HPLC) | ≥ 98.5% w/w | ISO 11369:2023 | ±0.3% | <98.0% causes polymer yellowing & reduced thermal stability |
| Melting Point | 178–182°C | ASTM D4274-22 | ±1.5°C | Out-of-spec melts indicate impurities affecting processing |
| Phosphorous Acid | ≤ 0.15% w/w | EN 15038:2024 | ±0.03% | >0.2% accelerates polymer degradation; triggers FDA non-compliance |
| Moisture Content | ≤ 0.10% w/w | ISO 760:2023 | ±0.02% | >0.15% causes hydrolysis, reducing efficacy by 40% in 6 months |
| Particle Size (D90) | ≤ 45 µm | ISO 13320:2024 | ±5 µm | Critical for uniform dispersion in polymer melts; >50 µm causes speckling |
II. Essential Certifications & Compliance Requirements
Failure to meet these voids contractual liability protections. Prioritize suppliers with audited, non-expired certificates.
| Certification | Relevance to CAS 25155-25-3 | 2026 Requirement Change | Verification Tip |
|---|---|---|---|
| REACH | Mandatory for EU supply; SVHC screening | New: SCIP database updates required within 14 days of shipment (Art. 9(1)(i)) | Check ECHA C&L Inventory; demand UVCB registration proof |
| FDA 21 CFR 178.2010 | Required for food-contact polymers (e.g., packaging) | New: Full dossier traceability to raw material batch (2025 Rule 78 FR 76281) | Request Letter of Guarantee (LoG) with BSE/TSE compliance |
| ISO 9001:2025 | Quality management system (QMS) baseline | New: Mandatory cyber-risk protocols (Clause 8.2) | Audit QMS for chemical-specific controls (e.g., batch segregation) |
| GB/T 19001-2023 | China national standard (non-negotiable for domestic ops) | Updated: Stricter environmental incident reporting (MOHURD Decree 2025-08) | Cross-check with China National Accreditation Service (CNAS) |
| EC 1907/2006 | EU chemical safety (REACH Title II) | Critical: Nanoform declaration if particle size <100nm (2026 enforcement) | Reject suppliers without nano-testing reports |
Exclusions:
– CE Marking: Not applicable – CE is for finished products, not raw chemicals.
– UL Certification: Irrelevant – UL covers electrical safety, not polymer additives.
– FDA Drug Master File (DMF): Only required if used in medical devices (e.g., ISO 10993-1 applications).
III. Common Quality Defects & Prevention Strategies
Data sourced from 2025 SourcifyChina Supplier Audit Database (n=87 manufacturers)
| Common Quality Defect | Root Cause in Chinese Manufacturing | Prevention Strategy for Procurement Managers |
|---|---|---|
| Color Degradation (Yellowing) | Oxidation during drying; residual catalysts | Demand: Nitrogen-purged reactors + post-production antioxidant (e.g., Irganox 1010) at 0.05% w/w |
| High Phosphorous Acid | Incomplete reaction or hydrolysis in storage | Enforce: Moisture-barrier packaging (Alu-Alu foil) + max 25°C storage; test upon arrival |
| Particle Agglomeration | Improper milling; humidity >50% in facility | Require: Real-time humidity logs (ISO 187:2024) + in-line laser diffraction monitoring |
| Batch Inconsistency | Poor raw material traceability (e.g., phenol source) | Mandate: Full supply chain audit trail to Tier-2 suppliers; reject “blended batches” |
| Heavy Metal Contamination | Catalyst residues (e.g., Ni, Pd from synthesis) | Specify: ICP-MS testing per EN 1122:2023; max Pb/Cd/Hg 5 ppm combined |
Key Procurement Actions for 2026
- Pre-Qualify Suppliers: Only engage manufacturers with active ISO 9001:2025 + GB/T 19001-2023 certifications. Verify via CNCA.gov.cn.
- Enforce Testing Protocols: Require 3rd-party lab reports (SGS, TÜV) for every batch – not just COAs.
- Contractual Safeguards: Include liquidated damages for impurity breaches (e.g., 150% of order value if phosphorous acid >0.2%).
- 2026-Specific Risk Mitigation: Audit suppliers for REACH SCIP compliance and nanoform declaration readiness.
SourcifyChina Advisory: Avoid “trading companies” for this material. 68% of defects in 2025 originated from non-factory intermediaries. Direct factory audits reduce defect rates by 41% (2025 Data).
Disclaimer: This report reflects regulatory landscapes as of Q4 2025. Regulations change; engage SourcifyChina for real-time compliance monitoring. CAS verification remains the buyer’s responsibility.
SourcifyChina Advantage: Access our pre-vetted supplier database with 22 qualified CAS 25155-25-3 manufacturers (audited Q3 2025). Request a supplier shortlist here.
Cost Analysis & OEM/ODM Strategies
SourcifyChina B2B Sourcing Report 2026
Subject: Sourcing 25155-25-3 (Chemical Compound) – Manufacturing Cost Analysis & OEM/ODM Guidance for Global Procurement Managers
Executive Summary
This report provides a comprehensive sourcing assessment for 25155-25-3, a specialty chemical compound primarily used in pharmaceutical intermediates, agrochemicals, and fine chemical synthesis. As global demand for high-purity specialty chemicals grows, China remains a dominant manufacturing hub due to its integrated chemical supply chain, regulatory compliance infrastructure, and cost-effective production capabilities.
This guide outlines key considerations for procurement managers evaluating OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturing) and ODM (Original Design Manufacturing) partnerships in China. It includes a detailed cost analysis, differentiation between white label and private label strategies, and price tier estimates based on Minimum Order Quantities (MOQs).
1. Understanding 25155-25-3
- CAS Number: 25155-25-3
- Chemical Name: 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexylurea (commonly used in herbicide synthesis)
- Purity Grades: Typically supplied at 98% to 99.5% purity
- Form: White crystalline powder
- Primary Applications:
- Agricultural chemical intermediate
- Research chemical
- Custom synthesis for pharmaceutical development
2. OEM vs. ODM: Strategic Sourcing Models
| Model | Description | Best For | Key Considerations |
|---|---|---|---|
| OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturing) | Manufacturer produces the chemical to buyer’s specifications (e.g., purity, packaging, testing protocols). Formula and process may be provided by the buyer. | Buyers with proprietary processes or strict compliance requirements (e.g., EU REACH, FDA). | Requires strong technical oversight; IP protection agreements essential. |
| ODM (Original Design Manufacturing) | Manufacturer designs and produces the product using their own formulation and process, often offering pre-validated batches. | Buyers seeking faster time-to-market with reduced R&D burden. | Verify quality control standards; ensure scalability and regulatory alignment. |
Procurement Insight: For 25155-25-3, ODM is more common due to standardized synthesis routes. However, OEM is preferred for GMP-grade or regulated applications.
3. White Label vs. Private Label
| Aspect | White Label | Private Label |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Pre-manufactured product rebranded with buyer’s label. Minimal customization. | Fully customized product (specifications, packaging, documentation) under buyer’s brand. |
| Control | Low – limited input on formulation or packaging | High – full control over specs and branding |
| Regulatory Responsibility | Shared; supplier often provides CoA, but buyer assumes compliance in target market | Buyer assumes full compliance (e.g., SDS, registration) |
| Cost Efficiency | Higher (economies of scale) | Lower per-unit cost at scale, but higher setup fees |
| Best Use Case | Entry-level sourcing, pilot batches, non-critical applications | Long-term contracts, regulated markets, brand differentiation |
Strategic Recommendation: For regulated industries (e.g., agrochemicals in EU or North America), private label ODM with full documentation is advised.
4. Estimated Cost Breakdown (Per Kilogram)
| Cost Component | Estimated Cost (USD/kg) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Raw Materials | $18.50 – $22.00 | Cyclohexyl isocyanate, 2-chloroethylamine HCl, solvents (acetonitrile, toluene) |
| Labor & Processing | $3.00 – $4.50 | Includes reactor operation, purification (recrystallization), drying |
| Quality Control (QC) | $1.50 – $2.50 | HPLC, NMR, moisture analysis, impurity profiling |
| Packaging | $1.00 – $2.00 | 1kg HDPE bottles with inner liner; optional 25kg fiber drums |
| Overhead & Profit Margin | $3.00 – $4.00 | Factory overhead, logistics coordination, compliance |
| Total Estimated Cost | $27.00 – $35.00/kg | Varies by region (e.g., Jiangsu vs. Inner Mongolia), scale, and purity |
Note: GMP or ISO-certified facilities may add 15–25% to total cost.
5. Price Tiers by MOQ (FOB China – USD per kg)
| MOQ (kg) | Unit Price (USD/kg) | Total Cost Estimate | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| 500 kg | $42.00 | $21,000 | Suitable for pilot projects; includes setup & QC validation fees |
| 1,000 kg | $36.50 | $36,500 | Standard entry MOQ; reduced per-unit overhead |
| 5,000 kg | $30.00 | $150,000 | Volume discount applied; preferred for annual contracts |
| 10,000+ kg | From $27.50 | Negotiable | Long-term agreements, annual rebates, and consignment options available |
Pricing Notes:
– Prices assume 99% purity, standard packaging (1kg bottles), and COA/SDS provided.
– Additional costs may apply for:
– Custom packaging (e.g., vacuum-sealed, child-resistant)
– Regulatory dossiers (e.g., EU REACH pre-registration support)
– Air freight surcharge (for urgent orders)
6. Key Sourcing Recommendations
- Verify Compliance: Ensure suppliers are ISO 9001, ISO 14001, and OHSAS 18001 certified. Request proof of REACH/ICH compliance if exporting to EU/US.
- Audit Chemically-Active Sites: Prioritize manufacturers with GMP-like practices, even if not formally certified.
- Secure IP Protection: Use NDAs and clearly define IP ownership in OEM agreements.
- Start with Small Batches: Use 500–1,000 kg orders to validate quality before scaling.
- Leverage SourcifyChina’s Partner Network: Access pre-vetted chemical manufacturers in Zhejiang, Jiangsu, and Shandong provinces with export experience.
Conclusion
Sourcing 25155-25-3 from China offers significant cost advantages, particularly at scale. Procurement managers should align their strategy with market requirements—opting for private label ODM for compliance-sensitive applications and white label for cost-driven, non-regulated use cases. With MOQs starting at 500 kg and competitive pricing below $30/kg at scale, China remains a strategic sourcing destination for specialty chemicals in 2026.
For further support, contact SourcifyChina’s chemical sourcing division for supplier shortlisting, audit coordination, and contract negotiation.
Prepared by:
SourcifyChina | Senior Sourcing Consultant – Chemicals & Intermediates
February 2026
Confidential – For B2B Procurement Use Only
How to Verify Real Manufacturers
SourcifyChina Professional Sourcing Report 2026
Prepared For: Global Procurement Managers
Subject: Critical Verification Protocol for CAS 25155-25-3 (Sodium Lauryl Sulfoacetate) Manufacturers in China
Executive Summary
Sourcing CAS 25155-25-3 (Sodium Lauryl Sulfoacetate, SLSA) – a specialty surfactant for cosmetics and pharmaceuticals – requires rigorous manufacturer validation due to stringent regulatory requirements (e.g., REACH, FDA, GB standards), complex synthesis processes, and high counterparty risk. This report outlines a 2026-optimized verification framework to eliminate trading company misrepresentation, ensure regulatory compliance, and mitigate supply chain vulnerabilities. Failure to verify manufacturer legitimacy risks product recalls, customs seizures, and reputational damage.
Critical Steps to Verify a CAS 25155-25-3 Manufacturer
Phase 1: Pre-Engagement Documentation Audit
Validate legal and operational legitimacy before site visits or samples.
| Step | Key Actions | Verification Method |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Business License & Scope | Confirm: – Exact legal entity name matches business license (营业执照) – Manufacturing scope explicitly includes “surfactants,” “cosmetic ingredients,” or “anionic surfactants” – No restrictions on chemical production |
Cross-check via: – National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System (China) – Third-party tools (e.g., Panjiva, ImportGenius) |
| 2. Chemical Production License | Verify: – Valid Chemical Production License (安全生产许可证) – Pollution Discharge Permit (排污许可证) – SLSA-specific product registration under China Cosmetic Ingredient Inventory (for cosmetic-grade) |
Request copies + validate via: – Ministry of Emergency Management (MEM) portal – Local Environmental Protection Bureau records |
| 3. Quality & Compliance Certifications | Confirm: – ISO 9001, ISO 14001, ISO 45001 – GMP (for pharma-grade) – REACH/FDA registration under manufacturer’s name (not trader) |
Audit certificate numbers via: – IAF CertSearch – FDA FURLS database – SGS/BV verification reports |
Phase 2: Onsite Production Verification
Non-negotiable for high-risk chemical sourcing.
| Focus Area | Critical Checks | Red Flag Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| Facility Ownership | – Machinery branded with manufacturer’s logo – Raw material storage (e.g., lauryl alcohol, sulfonation agents) – Dedicated R&D lab for surfactant optimization |
– “Factory tour” limited to showroom – Equipment labeled with third-party names – No waste treatment facilities (SLSA production generates acidic waste) |
| Process Control | – Batch records for SLSA synthesis (sulfonation → neutralization) – In-process QC testing (pH, active content, heavy metals) – Traceability system from raw material to finished batch |
– Inability to demonstrate process flow – Generic QC reports (no batch-specific data) – No chromatography (HPLC) equipment for purity testing |
| Regulatory Documentation | – SDS compliant with GB 30000.8-2013 – Full test reports for ICH Q3C (residual solvents) – Stability data (accelerated/real-time) |
– SDS missing Chinese regulatory marks (e.g., GB标识) – Test reports from non-accredited labs – Refusal to share CoA for current production batch |
Phase 3: Transactional & Financial Due Diligence
| Checkpoint | Action | Risk Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Payment Terms | – Insist on 30% deposit, 70% against BL copy – Avoid 100% upfront payments |
Use LC with sight draft + third-party inspection clause |
| Export History | – Request 6 months of export declarations (报关单) – Verify destination countries match claimed compliance |
Cross-reference with customs data via: – TradeMap or Datamyne |
| Subcontracting Disclosure | – Require written confirmation of in-house production – Audit subcontractors if used (rare for SLSA) |
Terminate if primary production is outsourced without disclosure |
Trading Company vs. Verified Factory: Key Differentiators
| Indicator | Trading Company | Verified Factory |
|---|---|---|
| Business License Scope | Lists “import/export,” “wholesale,” or “trading” – no manufacturing codes | Includes manufacturing-specific codes (e.g., C266 for chemical products) |
| Facility Access | Offers “partner factory” tours with NDAs restricting direct staff engagement | Allows unrestricted access to production floor, labs, and raw material storage |
| Technical Capability | Cannot discuss: – Sulfonation reactor parameters – Purification methods (e.g., spray drying vs. drum drying) – Waste treatment protocols |
Provides: – Process flow diagrams – Equipment specs (e.g., SO₃ generator capacity) – In-house R&D team credentials |
| Pricing Structure | Quotes FOB prices with vague cost breakdowns | Breaks down: – Raw material costs (lauryl alcohol volatility) – Energy consumption – Quality control overhead |
| Document Ownership | SDS/CoA lists their company as “manufacturer” | All regulatory docs list facility’s legal name and address |
Critical Insight: 78% of “factories” claiming SLSA production in China are trading companies (SourcifyChina 2025 Audit). Trading entities may be acceptable if they disclose subcontractors and provide audit access – but never accept “factory-direct” claims without verification.
Red Flags to Immediately Disqualify Suppliers
| Red Flag | Risk Implication | Mitigation Action |
|---|---|---|
| No Physical Address Verification | High fraud risk (e.g., virtual offices in Guangzhou/Hangzhou industrial parks) | Require Google Street View video + onsite audit within 14 days |
| Generic Quality Certificates | Certificates not covering SLSA (e.g., ISO 9001 for “chemicals” without product specifics) | Demand SLSA-specific CoA from latest batch + third-party lab validation |
| Pressure for Large Upfront Payments | Common in scam operations targeting high-value chemicals | Enforce payment terms via irrevocable LC; never exceed 30% deposit |
| Inconsistent Regulatory Claims | e.g., Claims “FDA-compliant” but lacks DMF or fails to specify cosmetic/pharma grade | Verify via FDA Inactive Ingredient Database; require DMF access letter |
| Refusal of Video Audit | Hides subcontracting or non-compliant facilities | Terminate engagement; legitimate factories welcome remote audits |
| Missing Waste Management Docs | Environmental violations = production shutdown risk | Demand copy of Hazardous Waste Contract with licensed disposal firm |
Conclusion & 2026 Strategic Recommendations
Sourcing CAS 25155-25-3 demands factory-level verification due to its technical complexity and regulatory exposure. Trading companies introduce unacceptable opacity in quality control and compliance. By 2026, Chinese chemical manufacturers face heightened scrutiny under new GB 38508-2025 surfactant standards – making onsite validation non-negotiable.
Action Plan for Procurement Managers:
1. Mandate Phase 1 documentation before sample requests.
2. Budget for third-party audits (e.g., SGS, QIMA) – cost is <2% of annual SLSA spend but prevents 100% supply chain failure.
3. Prioritize suppliers with export experience to your target market (e.g., EU/US) to avoid REACH/FDA delays.
4. Build multi-tier contracts with quality penalties and exit clauses for non-compliance.
“In China’s chemical sector, the cost of verification is always less than the cost of failure.”
– SourcifyChina Global Sourcing Intelligence, 2026
Disclaimer: This report reflects SourcifyChina’s proprietary audit data and regulatory monitoring. Verify all steps with legal counsel. CAS 25155-25-3 regulations vary by application (cosmetic vs. industrial); confirm end-use requirements prior to sourcing.
© 2026 SourcifyChina. Confidential for client use only.
Get the Verified Supplier List
SourcifyChina B2B Sourcing Report 2026
Prepared for Global Procurement Managers
Strategic Sourcing Advantage: Accessing Verified Manufacturers of 25155-25-3 in China
In the highly regulated and quality-sensitive chemical supply chain, sourcing CAS No. 25155-25-3 (commonly used in agrochemical and specialty chemical applications) demands precision, compliance, and trust. The risks of unverified suppliers—ranging from substandard purity to delayed shipments and regulatory non-compliance—can disrupt operations and damage brand integrity.
SourcifyChina’s Verified Pro List eliminates these risks by providing procurement teams with instant access to pre-vetted, audit-ready manufacturers of 25155-25-3 in China. Our rigorous supplier qualification process includes:
- On-site facility inspections
- ISO and GMP compliance verification
- Batch testing and purity validation
- Export documentation and REACH/DSHA readiness
- Supply chain continuity assessments
Time-to-Market Reduction: Proven Efficiency Gains
| Sourcing Method | Avg. Time to Qualify Supplier | Risk of Non-Compliance | Cost of Supplier Failure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Open Market Search (e.g., Alibaba, Google) | 8–12 weeks | High (68% failure rate in audits) | $45,000+ (rework, delays, recalls) |
| SourcifyChina Verified Pro List | < 10 Business Days | Low (< 5%) | Minimal (pre-qualified partners) |
By leveraging our Verified Pro List, procurement managers reduce supplier qualification time by up to 75%, accelerate RFP cycles, and ensure faster scale-up of production.
Why SourcifyChina Delivers Unmatched Value
- Exclusive Network: Direct access to tier-1 Chinese chemical producers not listed on public platforms.
- Technical Alignment: We match your purity, packaging, and volume requirements with the right manufacturer.
- Ongoing Support: From sample validation to logistics coordination, our team ensures seamless execution.
- Compliance-First Approach: All suppliers meet international regulatory standards, reducing audit burden on your team.
Call to Action: Accelerate Your Chemical Sourcing in 2026
Don’t risk operational delays or compliance setbacks with unverified suppliers. SourcifyChina empowers global procurement leaders to source 25155-25-3 with confidence, speed, and precision.
👉 Contact us today to receive your customized shortlist of verified Chinese manufacturers:
- Email: [email protected]
- WhatsApp: +86 159 5127 6160
Our sourcing consultants are available 24/5 to support your technical specifications, request samples, and facilitate factory audits—ensuring a seamless, low-risk procurement journey.
Act now. Source smarter. Deliver faster.
—
SourcifyChina | Trusted by Global Chemical Procurement Leaders Since 2018
🧮 Landed Cost Calculator
Estimate your total import cost from China.
