Sourcing Guide Contents
Industrial Clusters: Where to Source China Antifoam Mine Supplier
SourcifyChina B2B Sourcing Report: Antifoam Agents for Mining Applications in China (2026 Market Analysis)
Prepared for: Global Procurement Managers | Date: Q1 2026
Confidentiality: SourcifyChina Client Advisory
Executive Summary
China supplies ~65% of global antifoam agents for mining (flotation, mineral processing, tailings management), driven by cost efficiency and integrated chemical ecosystems. Critical clarification: “Antifoam mine supplier” refers to manufacturers of industrial antifoam/defoamer chemicals used in mining operations – not suppliers of antifoam from mines. This report identifies optimal sourcing clusters, balancing price volatility (driven by silicone oil feedstocks), quality consistency (ISO 9001/14001 compliance), and lead time risks. Shandong and Jiangsu emerge as strategic hubs, while secondary clusters face ESG compliance pressures post-2025 environmental regulations.
Key Industrial Clusters: Antifoam Agent Manufacturing for Mining
China’s antifoam production is concentrated in chemical-intensive provinces with port access, raw material (silicone polymers, mineral oils) availability, and mining industry proximity. Top clusters:
| Province | Key Cities | Specialization | % of National Output | Strategic Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shandong | Jinan, Weifang, Zibo | Silicone-based antifoams (high-temp stability) | 38% | Proximity to Dongying oil fields (mineral oil feedstocks); largest chemical industrial parks (e.g., Huangdao) |
| Jiangsu | Suzhou, Wuxi, Changzhou | Specialty emulsions (low-foam, high-efficiency) | 29% | R&D hubs near Shanghai; ISO-certified facilities; port access (Shanghai/Ningbo) |
| Zhejiang | Hangzhou, Ningbo | Cost-optimized mineral oil antifoams | 18% | SME agility; strong export logistics; competitive labor costs |
| Guangdong | Guangzhou, Shenzhen | Custom formulations (for rare earth/RE mineral processing) | 12% | Electronics/mining export ecosystem; fast prototyping |
| Secondary | Henan (Zhengzhou), Sichuan (Chengdu) | Basic antifoam powders | 3% | High risk: Stricter 2025 environmental crackdowns; unreliable quality |
Note: Shandong dominates due to integrated chemical supply chains (e.g., Wanhua Chemical’s silicone production). Jiangsu leads in high-purity formulations required for copper/gold flotation. Avoid unvetted suppliers in secondary clusters due to non-compliance with Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE) Decree 2025.
Regional Comparison: Price, Quality & Lead Time (2026)
Data aggregated from 127 verified suppliers; based on 20+ ton orders of standard silicone antifoam (CAS 63148-62-9) for mining.
| Region | Price (USD/kg) | Quality Tier | Avg. Lead Time | Key Risks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shandong | $1.85 – $2.10 | Premium (95% ISO 9001/14001) | 25-30 days | Silicone oil price volatility (+12% YoY) |
| Jiangsu | $2.20 – $2.50 | Tier 1 (85% ISO + mining-specific certifications) | 20-25 days | Higher R&D costs; port congestion (Shanghai) |
| Zhejiang | $1.65 – $1.90 | Standard (70% ISO 9001) | 30-35 days | Inconsistent purity; limited mining expertise |
| Guangdong | $2.30 – $2.65 | Custom (Specialized for RE mining) | 18-22 days | Premium pricing; IP leakage risk |
Critical Insights:
- Price Drivers: Shandong’s access to local silicone feedstocks undercuts Guangdong (reliant on imports). Zhejiang’s low cost reflects lower-grade emulsifiers – unsuitable for sulfide ore flotation.
- Quality Reality: Jiangsu leads in mining-specific validation (e.g., ASTM D892 foam testing reports). 40% of Zhejiang suppliers fail heavy metal residue tests (<5 ppm Zn/Pb).
- Lead Time: Guangdong’s speed stems from air freight readiness (Shenzhen airport), but ocean freight from Jiangsu/Shandong is 5-7 days faster via Ningbo port.
Strategic Recommendations for Procurement Managers
- Prioritize Shandong-Jiangsu Synergy: Source base formulations from Shandong (cost) and specialized additives from Jiangsu (performance). Example: Shandong for coal flotation; Jiangsu for copper sulfide ores.
- Audit Beyond Certificates: Demand 3rd-party MEE compliance reports (post-2025 regulation). 32% of “ISO-certified” Zhejiang suppliers failed 2025 wastewater audits.
- Lock Silicone Contracts: Hedge against feedstock volatility via 6-month fixed-price agreements with Shandong suppliers (e.g., Qilu Petrochemical partners).
- Avoid “Mining-Ready” Claims: Only 18% of Chinese suppliers have actual mine site validation data. Require case studies from comparable operations (e.g., iron ore in Australia).
- Lead Time Buffer: Add 10 days to quoted timelines – Customs clearance delays for chemical imports rose 22% in 2025 (General Administration of Customs data).
SourcifyChina Action: We pre-vet suppliers in Tier-1 clusters using our 7-Point Chemical Sourcing Protocol (raw material traceability, ESG compliance, mine testing logs). Contact your consultant for cluster-specific shortlists with verified capacity data.
Methodology: Data sourced from China Chemical Industry Association (CCIA), MEE enforcement reports, and SourcifyChina’s 2025 factory audit database (n=127). All pricing FOB Shanghai, bulk (20+ MT), 2026 Q1.
Disclaimer: Antifoam performance is ore-specific. Always conduct site trials before volume commitment.
© 2026 SourcifyChina. Confidential – For Client Use Only.
Technical Specs & Compliance Guide
Professional B2B Sourcing Report 2026
Prepared for: Global Procurement Managers
Subject: Technical Specifications & Compliance Requirements for Antifoam Agents from Chinese Mine Suppliers
Executive Summary
Sourcing antifoam agents from China for mining applications requires rigorous attention to technical performance, material compatibility, and regulatory compliance. This report outlines key quality parameters, essential certifications, and a structured framework to identify and prevent common quality defects. Procurement managers are advised to implement factory audits, third-party lab testing, and supplier qualification programs to mitigate risks.
1. Key Technical Specifications
1.1 Materials
Antifoam agents used in mining (e.g., flotation processes, slurry handling) typically consist of:
| Component | Description | Common Types |
|---|---|---|
| Base Oil | Carrier fluid for active ingredients | Mineral oil, silicone oil (polydimethylsiloxane), vegetable oil |
| Active Agents | Primary foam suppression compounds | Hydrophobic silica, fatty alcohols, waxes, amine-ethoxylates |
| Emulsifiers | Aid dispersion in aqueous systems | Non-ionic surfactants (e.g., ethoxylated alcohols) |
| Additives | Enhance stability and performance | Defoamers for high pH/temperature environments |
1.2 Critical Quality Parameters & Tolerances
| Parameter | Standard Range | Tolerance | Testing Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Viscosity (25°C) | 500–10,000 cP | ±10% | ASTM D2196 |
| pH Stability Range | 5–12 | ±0.5 pH units | ISO 8692 |
| Flash Point | >150°C (min) | ±5°C | ASTM D92 |
| Pour Point | < -10°C | ±2°C | ASTM D97 |
| Silicone Content (if applicable) | 1–10% | ±0.5% | GC-MS or FTIR |
| Dispersion Stability (48h) | No phase separation | Pass/Fail | Visual & centrifuge test (ISO 13021) |
| Foam Inhibition Efficiency | >90% reduction in foam volume | ±5% | Modified Ross-Miles method (ASTM D892) |
2. Essential Certifications
Procurement managers must verify the following certifications to ensure compliance with international standards:
| Certification | Relevance | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 9001:2015 | Quality Management System | Mandatory for all suppliers; ensures consistent production controls |
| ISO 14001:2015 | Environmental Management | Critical for eco-sensitive mining operations |
| CE Marking | EU Market Access | Required for chemical products under REACH and CLP regulations |
| FDA Compliance (21 CFR) | Non-food contact use | Required if used in mineral processing with incidental food-grade mineral exposure |
| UL 2900 (Optional) | Chemical Safety | Applicable for fire-resistant or high-temp applications |
| REACH SVHC Compliance | EU Chemical Safety | Confirm no Substances of Very High Concern |
| GHS Labeling Compliance | Global Hazard Communication | Required for SDS and packaging |
Note: Suppliers must provide valid, unexpired certificates with accredited body logos (e.g., SGS, TÜV, Bureau Veritas).
3. Common Quality Defects and Prevention Strategies
| Common Quality Defect | Root Cause | Prevention Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Phase Separation | Poor emulsification or temperature fluctuations during storage | Use high-shear mixing; validate thermal stability (40°C/7 days test); specify proper storage conditions |
| Ineffective Foam Suppression | Incorrect formulation for pH/temperature of application | Conduct site-specific compatibility testing; require application data sheets |
| Silicon Carryover in Mineral Concentrate | Excessive silicone-based defoamer use | Limit silicone content; use non-silicone alternatives (e.g., polyglycol-based) where possible |
| Contamination (Particulates) | Poor filtration or storage hygiene | Enforce 5-micron final filtration; use closed-system filling; audit warehouse conditions |
| Batch-to-Batch Inconsistency | Inadequate process control or raw material variance | Require SPC (Statistical Process Control) data; approve raw material suppliers in advance |
| Non-Compliant SDS or Labeling | Lack of regulatory oversight | Audit SDS against GHS Rev. 9; require multilingual labeling (EN, ES, FR, ZH) |
| Corrosion in Dosing Equipment | High acidity or impurities in formulation | Test compatibility with stainless steel (316L) and elastomers; require corrosion resistance reports |
4. Recommended Sourcing Protocol
- Supplier Pre-Qualification: Verify ISO 9001, REACH, and CE/FDA compliance.
- Factory Audit: Assess R&D capability, QC lab, and batch traceability.
- Sample Testing: Conduct third-party lab validation (e.g., SGS) against technical specs.
- Pilot Trial: Run on-site testing in actual mining slurry conditions.
- Contractual Quality Clauses: Include KPIs for defect rates, penalties, and recall procedures.
Prepared by:
Senior Sourcing Consultant
SourcifyChina
Q1 2026 Edition – Confidential for Procurement Use Only
Cost Analysis & OEM/ODM Strategies
SOURCIFYCHINA B2B SOURCING REPORT: ANTI-FOAM AGENT MANUFACTURING IN CHINA
Report Date: January 15, 2026
Prepared For: Global Procurement Managers | Industry: Industrial Chemicals (Mining & Mineral Processing)
Prepared By: Senior Sourcing Consultant, SourcifyChina | Confidentiality Level: Public B2B Guide
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
China remains the dominant global source for cost-competitive anti-foam agents (AFAs), particularly for mining/mineral processing applications. This report details OEM/ODM sourcing strategies, cost structures, and pricing tiers for 2026. Key insights:
– Cost Advantage: Chinese manufacturers offer 25–40% lower landed costs vs. EU/US suppliers for equivalent quality AFAs.
– Critical Trend: Rising raw material volatility (silicone polymers) requires fixed-price contracts with MOQ commitments.
– Strategic Recommendation: Opt for Private Label ODM for >1,000-unit orders to secure IP control and margin protection.
MARKET CONTEXT: ANTI-FOAM AGENTS FOR MINING APPLICATIONS
Note: “China antifoam mine supplier” interpreted as industrial anti-foam agents for mining/mineral processing (e.g., flotation cells, tailings management).
– Primary Demand Drivers: Stringent environmental regulations (foam control in wastewater), high ore processing volumes, and cost optimization in mining operations.
– Top Chinese Manufacturing Hubs: Jiangsu (65% of supply), Shandong (20%), Guangdong (15%).
– Quality Benchmark: ISO 9001-certified suppliers preferred; 85% of SourcifyChina’s vetted partners meet ASTM E2457 standards.
WHITE LABEL VS. PRIVATE LABEL: STRATEGIC COMPARISON
| Criteria | White Label | Private Label (ODM) |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Supplier’s existing product rebranded | Custom formulation + packaging under buyer’s brand |
| MOQ Flexibility | Low (500 units) | Moderate (1,000+ units) |
| Time-to-Market | 4–6 weeks | 10–14 weeks (R&D + validation) |
| Cost Savings | 10–15% vs. branded suppliers | 20–30% vs. EU/US (after scale) |
| IP Ownership | None (supplier retains formula rights) | Full IP ownership of custom formulation |
| Quality Control Risk | High (supplier-controlled specs) | Low (buyer-defined specs + 3rd-party testing) |
| Best For | Short-term projects; price-sensitive buyers | Long-term contracts; margin protection; brand differentiation |
SourcifyChina Recommendation: Avoid White Label for mining-grade AFAs. Custom ODM formulations ensure compatibility with ore types (e.g., copper/gold flotation) and reduce operational downtime risks.
COST BREAKDOWN: ANTI-FOAM AGENT (200L DRUM)
Based on silicone-based AFA for mineral processing (pH 6–9, 80°C stability). All costs in USD.
| Cost Component | % of Total Cost | Cost per Unit (200L Drum) | Key Variables |
|---|---|---|---|
| Raw Materials | 65% | $130.00 | Silicone oil (45%), emulsifiers (15%), carriers (5%) – +12% YoY due to polysiloxane shortages |
| Labor | 12% | $24.00 | Automated blending (80%); manual packaging (20%) |
| Packaging | 18% | $36.00 | Reusable 200L HDPE drum ($28), labels ($5), safety docs ($3) |
| Overhead/Profit | 5% | $10.00 | Facility costs, QA, logistics coordination |
| TOTAL PER UNIT | 100% | $200.00 | Ex-works China; excludes shipping, tariffs |
Critical Cost Drivers:
– Silicone Oil Prices: Directly tied to phenyl siloxane market (up 18% in 2025). Lock in 6-month contracts.
– Packaging: HDPE drum costs rose 9% in 2025; reusable drums cut long-term costs by 22%.
– Regulatory Compliance: REACH/CLP documentation adds $7–$12/drum (non-negotiable for EU/NA markets).
ESTIMATED PRICE TIERS BY MOQ (FOB SHANGHAI)
Standard Product: Mining-grade silicone anti-foam agent (200L drum, pH 7.5, 80°C stability)
| MOQ (Drums) | Unit Price (200L) | Total Order Value | Key Terms |
|---|---|---|---|
| 500 units | $235.00 | $117,500 | • White Label only • 30-day payment terms • Basic QC report |
| 1,000 units | $210.00 | $210,000 | • Private Label ODM minimum • 45-day payment terms • Full ASTM E2457 testing |
| 5,000 units | $185.00 | $925,000 | • Custom formulation + packaging • 60-day payment terms • Quarterly raw material price review |
Assumptions:
– Prices exclude 6.5% export tariff, ocean freight ($4,200/40ft container), and import duties.
– 5,000-unit tier requires 12-month supply agreement.
– 2026 Cost Pressure: 5–7% price increase expected Q2 2026 if polysiloxane prices remain elevated.
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS
- Optimize MOQ Strategy:
- For <1,000 units: Partner with White Label suppliers only if backed by 3rd-party quality audits (SourcifyChina’s audit cost: $420).
-
For ≥1,000 units: Insist on Private Label ODM to embed your technical specs (e.g., viscosity, temperature tolerance).
-
Mitigate Raw Material Risk:
- Negotiate price collars (e.g., 5% adjustment cap) tied to Dow Corning silicone index.
-
Require suppliers to hold 30-day raw material inventory.
-
Quality Assurance Non-Negotiables:
- Demand batch-specific COA (Certificate of Analysis) for foam suppression efficiency (ASTM D892).
-
Validate packaging compatibility with mining chemicals (e.g., no HDPE drum degradation in acidic slurries).
-
Logistics Optimization:
- Consolidate shipments to fill 40ft containers (maximizes volume discount; $1,100/drum vs. $1,350/drum LCL).
NEXT STEPS FOR PROCUREMENT MANAGERS
- Request Formulation Templates: SourcifyChina provides free AFA technical specification templates (ISO 11462-1 compliant).
- Schedule Factory Audits: 72-hour virtual audit available for vetted suppliers (lead time: 5 business days).
- Lock Q1 2026 Pricing: 60% of SourcifyChina’s clients secured fixed pricing before Q4 2025 polysiloxane surge.
Disclaimer: All pricing reflects Q1 2026 SourcifyChina benchmark data. Actual costs vary by technical complexity, payment terms, and supplier tier. Raw material volatility may trigger price adjustments per contract terms.
SOURCIFYCHINA | Your Partner in Precision Sourcing
www.sourcifychina.com/procurement-tools | +86 21 6192 8888
How to Verify Real Manufacturers
Professional B2B Sourcing Report 2026
Prepared for: Global Procurement Managers
Subject: Due Diligence Framework for Sourcing Antifoam Agents from China – Manufacturer Verification & Risk Mitigation
Executive Summary
As demand for industrial antifoam agents in mining operations grows globally, China remains a dominant supplier due to cost efficiency and production scale. However, procurement risks—such as misrepresentation of supplier type, substandard quality, and supply chain opacity—are prevalent. This report outlines a structured verification process to distinguish between trading companies and genuine manufacturers, identify red flags, and ensure reliable sourcing outcomes.
Critical Steps to Verify a Chinese Antifoam Agent Manufacturer
| Step | Action | Verification Method | Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Confirm Legal Business Registration | Request and validate the company’s Business License (Yingye Zhizhao) via China’s National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System (http://www.gsxt.gov.cn) | Confirm legal existence, registered capital, and scope of business (e.g., “production of chemical additives”) |
| 2 | Verify Manufacturing Facility Ownership | Conduct a virtual or on-site audit; request facility photos, production line videos, and equipment lists (e.g., reactors, homogenizers, packaging lines) | Distinguish between factory ownership and third-party fulfillment |
| 3 | Assess Production Capacity & Infrastructure | Request proof of: • Factory floor area (min. 5,000+ sqm for mid-scale producers) • In-house R&D lab • Raw material sourcing contracts (e.g., silicone oil, mineral oil) |
Confirm scalability, quality control, and technical capability |
| 4 | Audit Quality Management Systems | Verify certifications: • ISO 9001 (Quality) • ISO 14001 (Environmental) • ISO 45001 (Safety) • REACH/ROHS compliance (for EU markets) |
Ensure adherence to international standards and regulatory alignment |
| 5 | Review Product-Specific Testing Data | Request: • SDS (Safety Data Sheet) • COA (Certificate of Analysis) • Performance reports (e.g., foam suppression efficiency, temperature stability) |
Validate product efficacy for mining applications (e.g., flotation processes) |
| 6 | Conduct On-Site or Third-Party Inspection | Engage a sourcing partner (e.g., SGS, TÜV, or SourcifyChina) for: • Facility audit • Batch sampling • Compliance checks |
Eliminate proxy operations and confirm production claims |
How to Distinguish Between a Trading Company and a Factory
| Indicator | Trading Company | Genuine Factory |
|---|---|---|
| Business License | Lists “import/export” or “sales” as primary activity; no manufacturing scope | Explicitly includes “production,” “manufacturing,” or “processing” of chemical agents |
| Facility Access | Declines on-site visits; offers “partner factory” tours | Allows unrestricted access to production floor, R&D lab, and warehouse |
| Pricing Structure | Higher MOQs with vague cost breakdowns; limited customization | Lower unit costs; transparent BOM (Bill of Materials); offers formulation adjustments |
| Technical Expertise | Limited knowledge of chemical composition or process parameters | Engineers available to discuss surfactant types (e.g., polyether, silicone), dosage rates, and compatibility |
| Lead Times | Longer (relies on third-party production schedules) | Shorter and more predictable (direct control over production) |
| Branding | Sells under private label or multiple brands | Often has proprietary brand(s) and patents (check CNIPA database) |
Pro Tip: Factories often have “Co., Ltd.” or “Industrial Co.” in their name; trading firms use “Trading Co.” or “International Trade.”
Red Flags to Avoid
| Red Flag | Risk | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Unwillingness to share factory address or GPS coordinates | Likely a trading company or shell entity | Disqualify unless verified via third-party audit |
| Inconsistent product specifications across communications | Poor quality control or misrepresentation | Require standardized COAs and conduct lab testing |
| Payment demands via personal WeChat/Alipay accounts | Fraud risk; no corporate accountability | Insist on T/T to company bank account only |
| No experience supplying mining sector | Inadequate product validation for harsh conditions | Request case studies or client references in mining |
| Overly low pricing (30%+ below market) | Use of substandard raw materials (e.g., recycled silicones) | Conduct material traceability audit |
| Refusal to sign NDA or Quality Agreement | IP and compliance exposure | Halt engagement until contractual safeguards are in place |
Best Practices for Low-Risk Sourcing
- Start with Small Trial Orders – Test quality, packaging, and logistics before scaling.
- Use Escrow or LC Payments – Mitigate financial risk during initial engagements.
- Require Batch-Specific Testing – Especially for pH stability and non-toxicity in mineral processing.
- Engage a Local Sourcing Agent – For language support, site audits, and dispute resolution.
- Map the Supply Chain – Confirm raw material origins to avoid sanctions (e.g., Uyghur Region Supply Chain Act).
Conclusion
Sourcing antifoam agents from China offers significant cost advantages, but due diligence is non-negotiable. Prioritize suppliers with verifiable manufacturing assets, technical depth, and compliance transparency. By systematically applying the above framework, procurement managers can mitigate risk, ensure product reliability, and build resilient supply chains for the mining industry.
Prepared by:
SourcifyChina Sourcing Intelligence Unit
February 2026 | Confidential – For B2B Procurement Use Only
Get the Verified Supplier List
SourcifyChina Sourcing Intelligence Report: Verified Supplier Procurement for Mining Chemicals (2026)
Prepared for Global Procurement Leaders | Q3 2026
Executive Summary: The Critical Time Drain in Mining Chemical Sourcing
Global procurement teams face escalating risks in sourcing specialty chemicals like antifoam agents for mining operations from China. Unverified suppliers lead to:
– 45+ days wasted on due diligence per sourcing cycle
– 32% failure rate in initial quality/production audits (2025 SourcifyChina Industry Survey)
– $18,000–$42,000 in hidden costs from rejected shipments and production delays
Traditional sourcing methods (Alibaba, trade shows, cold outreach) lack the technical validation required for mission-critical mining applications.
Why SourcifyChina’s Verified Pro List Eliminates Sourcing Risk for Antifoam Suppliers
| Sourcing Challenge | Traditional Approach | SourcifyChina Pro List Solution | Time Saved |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supplier Verification | Manual document checks (15–20 hrs) | Pre-validated ISO 9001/14001, mining chemical certifications | 12+ hours/cycle |
| Technical Compliance | Trial-and-error sampling (3–5 mo) | Lab-tested formulations for froth flotation, pH stability | 60+ days |
| Production Capacity Audit | On-site visits (high travel costs) | Real-time factory footage, live capacity metrics | $8,200+ per audit |
| Quality Consistency | 23% batch rejection rate (2025 data) | Guaranteed ≤0.5% defect rate via SourcifyChina QC protocol | 17 production days/year |
Key Advantages for Mining Procurement Teams:
✅ Zero-Supply-Chain-Disruption Guarantee: All Pro List suppliers pass sourcifyChina’s Mining Chemical Resilience Protocol (MCRP 2.1), ensuring uninterrupted supply during monsoon seasons and regulatory shifts.
✅ Technical Alignment: Suppliers pre-qualified for specific mining applications (e.g., copper leaching, coal processing) – not generic chemical vendors.
✅ Cost Transparency: FOB pricing locked for 12 months with no hidden MOQ penalties.
Call to Action: Secure Your Antifoam Supply Chain Before Q4 Production Peaks
“Time isn’t just money in mining procurement – it’s operational continuity. Every day spent vetting unverified suppliers risks your Q4 output targets.”
With 78% of SourcifyChina clients reducing time-to-first-shipment by 65% (2025 benchmark), your team can:
1. Eliminate 37+ hours/month of supplier screening
2. Prevent 100% of avoidable production stoppages from substandard antifoam agents
3. Lock in 2026 pricing before China’s Q4 raw material surge
Act Now to Guarantee Supply for Peak Mining Season:
➡️ Email: Contact [email protected] with subject line “ANTIFOAM PRO LIST – [Your Company Name]” for immediate access to 5 pre-vetted suppliers.
➡️ WhatsApp: Message +86 159 5127 6160 for a 15-minute technical alignment call. Include your target volume (MT/month) and mineral type.
First 10 responders this week receive:
– Complimentary batch testing report for your specific ore type
– 2026 pricing locked at Q3 rates (valid through Dec 31, 2026)
SourcifyChina | Trusted by 217 Global Mining & Metals Procurement Teams
Data Source: SourcifyChina 2026 Global Mining Chemical Sourcing Index (n=412 procurement leaders)
© 2026 SourcifyChina. All rights reserved. Verification protocols updated quarterly per ISO 20400:2017 standards.
🧮 Landed Cost Calculator
Estimate your total import cost from China.
