Yellow Phosphorus Market Intelligence Report (May 21–27, 2026)

I. Price Trends
1. Benchmark Prices
– May 21: RMB 32,429.33/ton
– May 20: RMB 32,429.33/ton
– May 19: RMB 32,096.00/ton
– May 18: RMB 31,296.00/ton
– May 15: RMB 30,462.67/ton
– May 14: RMB 29,562.67/ton
– May 1: RMB 27,756.00/ton
– Cumulative Increase: +16.84% from May 1 to May 21; single-day surge of RMB 1,500/ton (+4.84%) on May 22.

2. Market Quotations
– May 25: RMB 32,785.71/ton (up RMB 300/ton, +0.92% vs. prior day)
– May 22: RMB 32,485.71/ton (up RMB 1,500/ton, +4.84% day-on-day)
– May 21: RMB 30,985.71/ton (down RMB 500/ton, ?1.59% vs. prior day)
– May 18: RMB 31,685.71/ton (up RMB 500/ton, +1.60% vs. prior day).

II. Driving Factor Analysis
1. Supply-Side Tightening
– Accident Impact: A 40,000-ton yellow phosphorus plant in Guizhou suffered an accident on May 14 and suspended operations, further constraining supply.
– Declining Operating Rates: National integrated phosphoric acid industry operating rate stood at 56.56% this week, down 1.13 percentage points week-on-week; thermal phosphoric acid operating rate was 60.36%, with some enterprises reducing output or halting production due to cost pressures.
– Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid Production Cuts: Wengfu Group’s Dazhou and Shanghang bases plan to suspend operations due to raw material shortages; on May 22, its subsidiary Wengfu Chemical announced a full shutdown and raised purified phosphoric acid quotations to RMB 35,000/ton, accelerating substitution demand for thermal phosphoric acid.

2. Cost-Side Support
– High Phosphate Rock Prices: Hubei 28% phosphate rock (shipboard, tax-inclusive): RMB 980/ton; Sichuan 30% phosphate concentrate: RMB 970/ton—structural raw material shortages persist long-term.
– Soya Sulfur Price Surge: As of May 22, sulfur price reached RMB 7,675/ton, up 204.0% year-on-year; wet-process phosphoric acid production cost per ton increased by RMB 3,646 YoY, pushing profitability down to ?RMB 1,197/ton—forcing producers to shift toward thermal phosphoric acid.

3. Demand-Side Divergence
– Steady New Energy Demand: LFP (lithium iron phosphate) production utilization remained above 80%; national phosphoric acid iron output in April totaled 396,600 tons, up 10.18% MoM—boosting demand for both purified wet-process and thermal phosphoric acid.
– Fertilizer Demand in Wait-and-See Mode: Monoammonium phosphate (MAP) prices edged up, yet fertilizer enterprise operating rates remain below 50%, with procurement remaining cautious.
– Glyphosate Export Pull: Concentrated overseas demand—especially from South America—has triggered a surge in export orders for glyphosate, for which yellow phosphorus is a core raw material.

III. Market Impacts
1. Thermal Phosphoric Acid Approaching RMB 10,000/Ton Threshold
– Driven by the sharp rise in yellow phosphorus prices, thermal phosphoric acid producers in Sichuan suspended quotations on May 22; market reference price rose to RMB 9,700/ton, up 7.18% weekly.
– Average thermal phosphoric acid profit in East China reached RMB 956/ton, up 3.63% week-on-week; however, cost growth (+6.62%) outpaced profit growth, sharply compressing margins.

2. Deep Losses in Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid Segment
– Persistently high sulfur prices have driven wet-process phosphoric acid profitability down to ?RMB 1,197/ton; the entire sector faces severe margin pressure, prompting some plants to reduce operating loads or conduct unscheduled maintenance shutdowns.

3. Regional Price Divergence
– Yunnan led regional yellow phosphorus price gains, reaching RMB 32,000/ton on May 22.
– East China (Jiangsu & Shandong): Quotations for 85% wet-process phosphoric acid held firm at RMB 10,200–10,300/ton.

IV. Forward Outlook
1. Short-Term (1–2 Weeks)
– Prices Likely to Remain Elevated and Resilient: Supply tightening and strong cost support—combined with stable new-energy demand—suggest continued high-level price volatility with upward bias.
– Accumulating Risks: Phosphoric acid prices have reached historical highs; downstream acceptance of elevated pricing is waning, and deep losses in the wet-process segment may constrain demand release pace—raising risks of “price without volume”.

2. Medium-Term (1–3 Months)
– Supply Recovery Expectations: If the Guizhou incident proves short-lived and new capacity gradually comes online (e.g., the 50,000-ton yellow phosphorus project in Kaiyang County), prices may face downward pressure.
– Structural Demand Growth: Continued LFP demand will sustain yellow phosphorus consumption; however, fertilizer sector recovery hinges critically on sulfur price trends.

3. Long-Term (6+ Months)
– Policy and Resource Dynamics: Policies promoting tiered development of phosphate resources (e.g., Kaiyang’s “High-Quality Ore, Precision Development”) will optimize supply structure—but geopolitical factors (e.g., sulfur import dependence) and environmental regulation remain key variables.
– Technological Substitution Risk: The cost inversion between thermal and wet-process phosphoric acid may accelerate industrial process transformation, reshaping long-term yellow phosphorus demand patterns.

V. Key Monitoring Indicators
1. Yellow phosphorus price trajectory and duration of Guizhou incident impact.
2. Scope and scale of wet-process phosphoric acid production cuts.
3. Signals of downstream new-energy enterprise procurement strategy adjustments (e.g., LFP producers’ ability to absorb price hikes).
4. International price linkage effects between phosphate rock and sulfur.