뷰프로페진(Buprofezin) 시장 : 제제 유형별, 작물 유형별, 시용 방법별, 최종사용자별, 판매 채널별 - 세계 예측(2025-2032년)

The Buprofezin Market is projected to grow by USD 1,165.47 million at a CAGR of 5.44% by 2032.

An authoritative introduction to buprofezin covering its insect growth regulator mode of action, primary crop applications, regulatory and stewardship context

Buprofezin occupies a distinct position within contemporary integrated pest management frameworks as an insect growth regulator that disrupts molting and development in key sap-sucking pests. Agricultural practitioners rely on its targeted mode of action to manage populations of whiteflies, scale insects, planthoppers, and other hemipteran pests that threaten cotton, rice, vegetables, and certain fruit categories. Because it affects immature stages rather than providing acute knockdown, buprofezin integrates effectively with complementary chemistries and biological agents when resistance mitigation and residue considerations shape tactical decisions.

Regulatory scrutiny and stewardship commitments increasingly influence the way formulators and applicators deploy buprofezin. Consequently, formulators have invested in delivery formats that optimize crop safety and operator handling while minimizing non-target exposure. In parallel, growers and advisors have adapted application timing and tank-mix strategies to preserve product efficacy across successive pest generations. Transitioning from single-season interventions toward season-long pest management programs, stakeholders emphasize rotation, monitoring, and compatibility with beneficial insect populations.

Taken together, these dynamics frame the current discourse around buprofezin: it is a strategic tool for controlling specific pest complexes, yet its long-term utility depends on coordinated stewardship, formulation innovation, and alignment with evolving regulatory expectations. Those factors shape procurement decisions, extension messaging, and product development roadmaps in practical ways.

Transformative technological, regulatory, and distributional shifts that are redefining how buprofezin products are formulated, regulated, and deployed across crop systems

The landscape for buprofezin is shifting as several transformative trends converge to reshape how crop protection products are developed, marketed, and used. Precision agriculture and digital decision-support tools have changed application timing and dosage selection, enabling growers to integrate buprofezin into targeted interventions informed by real-time pest monitoring. At the same time, formulation science has evolved to address compatibility with tank-mix partners and to improve adherence, rainfastness, and crop safety, which in turn influences product uptake across diverse cropping systems.

Regulatory tightening and heightened scrutiny on environmental and operator safety have accelerated demand for robust stewardship programs and transparent data packages. Consequently, manufacturers and registrants place greater emphasis on residue characterization, non-target risk assessments, and label clarity. Supply chain dynamics have also changed, as global sourcing and raw material availability prompt formulators to re-evaluate manufacturing footprints and contract partnerships. In addition, shifts in distribution behavior - including expanding direct-to-grower engagement and the growth of online procurement channels - are altering how technical support and training are delivered.

These forces operate together: innovation in formulation and data-driven application practices supports compliance and efficacy, while evolving distribution and supply arrangements change how information and product reach end users. Stakeholders who anticipate and respond to these shifts can protect efficacy, reduce regulatory friction, and capture operational efficiencies that strengthen long-term product viability.

How the 2025 tariff environment produced cascading supply chain, procurement, and distribution effects that reshaped access to buprofezin formulations and inputs

The implementation of tariffs and trade measures by the United States in 2025 created a cascade of indirect effects for products like buprofezin that rely on global supply chains for active ingredients, inert components, and formulation services. Increased import costs for certain precursor chemicals and packaging materials raised the unit cost base for formulators who sourced components internationally, prompting procurement teams to reevaluate supplier portfolios and to prioritize localized or diversified supply relationships. In turn, some manufacturers adjusted production sequencing and inventory policies to mitigate exposure to tariff volatility and to preserve continuity of supply for key cropping periods.

At the distribution and end-user level, cost pass-through dynamics varied by channel and customer type. Large agricultural operations with integrated purchasing and longer-term procurement contracts absorbed short-term input price movements more easily than small-scale farms that depend on spot purchases and may face tighter working capital constraints. Moreover, tariff-driven changes fostered reconfiguration in trade flows, encouraging some suppliers to seek alternative export destinations or to accelerate domestic registration and production plans in tariff-affected markets.

Importantly, the policy environment stimulated closer collaboration between registrants, compliance specialists, and commercial teams to ensure uninterrupted access to labeled products while remaining compliant with regulatory obligations. In sum, tariff developments in 2025 heightened focus on supply chain resilience, supplier diversification, and contractual strategies that buffer growers and formulators from episodic trade disruptions.

Granular segmentation insights revealing how formulation choices, crop categories, application methods, end-user profiles, and sales channels collectively shape buprofezin deployment decisions

Insights across key segmentation dimensions reveal differentiated demand drivers, application preferences, and commercialization strategies for buprofezin products. Based on formulation type, stakeholders evaluate emulsifiable concentrates, granules, suspension concentrates, and wettable powders for their fit with specific application windows, crop safety profiles, and operator handling requirements; emulsifiable concentrates often appeal where rapid mixing and compatibility with surfactants matter, while granule formats can offer targeted soil- or water-delivered options for paddy or broadcast applications. Suspension concentrates and wettable powders remain valuable where foliar contact and uniform coverage across complex canopies determine efficacy.

Based on crop type, users tailor selection to the pest complex and crop physiology. Cotton, fruit, paddy, and vegetables each present unique considerations: cotton programs prioritize control of sap-sucking pests across multiple growth stages; fruit applications require attention to preharvest intervals and pollinator exposure, with fruit categories further dissected across berry, citrus, and stone fruit for varying residue and canopy management needs; paddy systems often favor formulations and application windows synchronized with planthopper life cycles; vegetables require agile application timing across fruit vegetables, leafy vegetables, and root vegetables where harvest schedules and residue tolerances differ.

Based on application method, deployment choices cluster around foliar spray, seed treatment, and soil treatment options, with foliar spray remaining the prevalent mode for rapid suppression of active infestations and seed or soil treatments offering prophylactic protection in select systems. Based on end user, the distinction between large scale farms and small scale farms affects purchasing patterns, technical support needs, and willingness to adopt premium formulations or subscription-based supply models. Based on sales channel, direct sales, distributors, and online platforms each present trade-offs between hands-on technical service, reach into fragmented geographies, and convenience; distributors often provide localized agronomic support while direct sales can bundle technical training and stewardship commitments, and online channels increasingly serve smaller buyers seeking transactional convenience. Together, these segmentation lenses inform product development priorities, extension strategies, and channel investments in ways that reflect agronomic realities and commercial constraints.

Regional agronomic, regulatory, and distribution nuances across the Americas, Europe, Middle East & Africa, and Asia-Pacific that determine product use and commercialization pathways

Regional dynamics shape how buprofezin is used, regulated, and commercialized across diverse cropping systems. In the Americas, adoption patterns reflect a mix of specialty crop and row crop needs; technical support and distributor networks play a central role in translating label constraints into field practice, and growers often seek integration with broader pest management tools suitable for cotton, vegetables, and fruit systems. Regulatory engagement and stewardship programs in this region emphasize worker safety and environmental risk mitigation, which influence formulation preferences and application timing.

In Europe, Middle East & Africa, regulatory frameworks and regional climatic diversity create heterogeneous demand and approval conditions. Some jurisdictions emphasize stringent residue and non-target species assessments that shape label language and permissible use patterns, while others prioritize access for key staple or export-oriented crops. Technical advisories and extension networks in these geographies frequently guide growers toward integrated approaches that balance efficacy with compliance and market access objectives.

In Asia-Pacific, agricultural systems characterized by intensive rice cultivation, extensive vegetable production, and significant smallholder presence rely heavily on targeted tools for planthopper and sap-sucking pest complexes. Here, formulations that suit paddy application regimes and mixed-cropping calendars gain traction, and stewardship messaging that accounts for multiple cropping cycles proves essential. Across regions, supply chain configuration, regulatory drivers, and agronomic practices interact to determine which channels, formulations, and advisory models best support effective and sustainable use.

Strategic company-level imperatives focusing on formulation innovation, regulatory stewardship, channel partnerships, and service integration to sustain competitive advantage

Competitive dynamics among manufacturers, formulators, and service providers center on formulation innovation, regulatory expertise, and channel reach. Leading enterprises prioritize investments in formulation platforms that enhance compatibility with precision application technologies and that reduce operator exposure while maintaining efficacy against target pest complexes. At the same time, contract manufacturing and private-label arrangements allow regional formulators to tailor products to local cropping systems and regulatory conditions, creating opportunities for agile market entrants.

R&D teams and regulatory affairs specialists collaborate to build robust data packages that support label renewal, risk mitigation, and stewardship initiatives. Partnerships between technical teams and commercial units increasingly aim to translate efficacy data into actionable extension materials and training programs for distributors and end users. Additionally, companies that offer integrated services - combining product supply with digital advisory tools, monitoring services, or custom formulations - differentiate on the basis of convenience and technical value.

Mergers, licensing arrangements, and distribution partnerships remain important mechanisms for scaling geographic reach and accelerating product registration timelines without duplicative capital investment. In this environment, firms that maintain strong relationships with growers, extension agents, and channel partners can more effectively deploy stewardship programs and respond to evolving regulatory expectations, thereby preserving product relevance over multiple cropping cycles.

Actionable recommendations for manufacturers and distributors to fortify supply resilience, advance stewardship, and optimize commercialization of buprofezin products

Industry leaders can take several practical steps to strengthen product resilience, protect efficacy, and expand responsible use of buprofezin. First, prioritize formulation development that improves ease of use, reduces operator exposure, and enhances compatibility with integrated pest management practices; investing in adjuvant science and delivery systems reduces barriers to adoption and can lengthen product lifecycle utility. Second, build robust stewardship and resistance management programs that combine clear label instructions, train-the-trainer initiatives for distributors and advisors, and monitoring protocols that inform rotation and tank-mix choices.

Third, diversify supply chains by securing multiple qualified suppliers for key inputs and by assessing local or regional manufacturing options to reduce exposure to trade volatility. Fourth, strengthen relationships with end users through bundled services that include agronomic advisory, digital decision-support tools, and field-level diagnostics; these offerings create recurring engagement and improve proper product use. Fifth, engage proactively with regulatory authorities and industry associations to streamline data submissions, address non-target risk considerations, and align residue management strategies with export market requirements.

Finally, tailor commercialization strategies to channel dynamics: support distributors with localized technical materials, develop direct-sales pilots for high-value customers, and design online offerings for smaller buyers who value convenience. By combining technical innovation with supply resilience and targeted commercial models, industry leaders can sustain product relevance while meeting evolving regulatory and grower expectations.

A transparent hybrid research methodology combining primary interviews, regulatory and technical literature review, and field validation to triangulate practical insights on buprofezin use

This research synthesizes insights from a hybrid methodology combining primary interviews, regulatory documentation review, technical literature synthesis, and field-level observation to ensure robust, triangulated findings. Primary qualitative interviews included crop protection specialists, formulation scientists, registrants' regulatory leads, distributors, and grower advisors to capture on-the-ground practices and strategic priorities. Complementary secondary analysis drew on peer-reviewed entomology and agronomy literature, publicly available regulatory filings, and company disclosures to contextualize efficacy profiles, residue management practices, and label constraints.

Field-level observation and practitioner feedback informed assessments of application timing, formulation performance under diverse climatic conditions, and stewardship practices at farm scale. Data triangulation helped reconcile differences between controlled-trial efficacy and practical in-field outcomes, while expert validation workshops reviewed preliminary conclusions to ensure relevance and clarity. Quality assurance measures included cross-referencing regulatory documents against reported use patterns and seeking clarifications from technical interviewees when discrepancies emerged.

Throughout the research process, ethical considerations and confidentiality requirements guided interactions with commercial participants. The methodology emphasizes transparency in source attribution and replicability of approach while acknowledging practical limitations inherent in rapidly evolving regulatory and trade contexts.

Concluding synthesis emphasizing the sustained agronomic role of buprofezin alongside the necessity for stewardship, supply resilience, and coordinated commercial strategies

In conclusion, buprofezin remains a targeted and valuable tool within integrated pest management programs for specific sap-sucking pest complexes across cotton, rice, vegetables, and select fruit crops. Its role is reinforced by formulation advancements and data-driven application practices, even as regulatory scrutiny and trade dynamics challenge supply continuity and cost structures. The combined pressures of stewardship expectations, changing distribution channels, and trade policy shifts necessitate adaptive approaches in procurement, product development, and grower engagement.

Stakeholders that align formulation innovation with robust stewardship, diversify supply relationships, and invest in channel-specific technical support will better sustain efficacy and retain grower confidence. Moreover, integrating digital advisory services and localized training into commercialization strategies strengthens correct use and reduces the risk of resistance development. As the sector evolves, decision-makers should prioritize operational resilience and proactive regulatory engagement to preserve both access and product integrity.

Taken together, these conclusions underscore the importance of coordinated action across R&D, regulatory, supply chain, and commercial functions to maintain the utility of buprofezin in modern crop protection portfolios while addressing environmental and market expectations.

Table of Contents

1. Preface

• 1.1. Objectives of the Study
• 1.2. Market Segmentation & Coverage
• 1.3. Years Considered for the Study
• 1.4. Currency & Pricing
• 1.5. Language
• 1.6. Stakeholders

2. Research Methodology

3. Executive Summary

4. Market Overview

5. Market Insights

• 5.1. Rising adoption of buprofezin formulations for controlling whitefly infestations in greenhouse vegetables
• 5.2. Expansion of organic-certified buprofezin-based bioinsecticides in sustainable crop protection programs
• 5.3. Integration of drone-based precision application techniques for buprofezin in large-scale cotton farming
• 5.4. Increasing regulatory approvals of buprofezin for use in paddy rice cultivation across Asia Pacific markets
• 5.5. Development of nano-encapsulated buprofezin delivery systems to enhance field stability and efficacy
• 5.6. Strategic collaborations between agrochemical companies for buprofezin patent pooling and co-development
• 5.7. Impact of rising raw material costs on buprofezin production margins among key manufacturers
• 5.8. Surge in integrated pest management adoption driving increased use of buprofezin in IPM programs

6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025

7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025

8. Buprofezin Market, by Formulation Type

• 8.1. Emulsifiable Concentrate
• 8.2. Granule
• 8.3. Suspension Concentrate
• 8.4. Wettable Powder

9. Buprofezin Market, by Crop Type

• 9.1. Cotton
• 9.2. Fruit
  • 9.2.1. Berry
  • 9.2.2. Citrus
  • 9.2.3. Stone Fruit
• 9.3. Paddy
• 9.4. Vegetables
  • 9.4.1. Fruit Vegetables
  • 9.4.2. Leafy Vegetables
  • 9.4.3. Root Vegetables

10. Buprofezin Market, by Application Method

• 10.1. Foliar Spray
• 10.2. Seed Treatment
• 10.3. Soil Treatment

11. Buprofezin Market, by End User

• 11.1. Large Scale Farms
• 11.2. Small Scale Farms

12. Buprofezin Market, by Sales Channel

• 12.1. Direct Sales
• 12.2. Distributors
• 12.3. Online

13. Buprofezin Market, by Region

• 13.1. Americas
  • 13.1.1. North America
  • 13.1.2. Latin America
• 13.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
  • 13.2.1. Europe
  • 13.2.2. Middle East
  • 13.2.3. Africa
• 13.3. Asia-Pacific

14. Buprofezin Market, by Group

• 14.1. ASEAN
• 14.2. GCC
• 14.3. European Union
• 14.4. BRICS
• 14.5. G7
• 14.6. NATO

15. Buprofezin Market, by Country

• 15.1. United States
• 15.2. Canada
• 15.3. Mexico
• 15.4. Brazil
• 15.5. United Kingdom
• 15.6. Germany
• 15.7. France
• 15.8. Russia
• 15.9. Italy
• 15.10. Spain
• 15.11. China
• 15.12. India
• 15.13. Japan
• 15.14. Australia
• 15.15. South Korea

16. Competitive Landscape

• 16.1. Market Share Analysis, 2024
• 16.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2024
• 16.3. Competitive Analysis
  • 16.3.1. Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd.
  • 16.3.2. Nippon Soda Co., Ltd.
  • 16.3.3. Jiangsu Changqing Agrochemical Co., Ltd.
  • 16.3.4. Adama Agricultural Solutions Ltd.
  • 16.3.5. UPL Limited
  • 16.3.6. Dhanuka Agritech Limited
  • 16.3.7. Nufarm Limited
  • 16.3.8. Jiangsu Huifeng Agrochemical Co., Ltd.
  • 16.3.9. Shandong United Pesticide Industry Co., Ltd.
  • 16.3.10. Gharda Chemicals Limited