What’s the Difference Between Urea Phosphate (UP) and Monoammonium Phosphate (MAP) if Both Contain P and N?

1) Nutrient Content

Urea Phosphate (CO(NH₂)₂·H₃PO₄)

• Also called urea phosphate salt / urea phosphoric acid.

• N = 17.7%; P₂O₅ = 44.9%.

• Melting point: 117.3 °C.

• Highly water-soluble; aqueous solution is acidic (pH 1.6–2.4; 1% solution pH 1.89).

• Solubility at 46 °C: 202 g/L.

• Stable at room temperature; decomposition accelerates with heat:

  • ≥120 °C → ammonium polyphosphate

  • >220 °C → polyphosphoric acid

  • >450 °C → further decomposition of polyphosphoric acid

Monoammonium Phosphate (MAP, NH₄H₂PO₄; MW 115.03)

• Binary N–P fertilizer.

• Common grades: 12% N & 60% P₂O₅ or 12% N & 54% P₂O₅; some processes reach 73% total nutrients.

Takeaway: UP has higher N but lower P than MAP.

2) Chemical Properties

Urea Phosphate

• Colorless, transparent prismatic crystals with layered structure.

• MW 158.06; density 1.74 g/cm³; melting point 115–117 °C.

• 1% solution pH 1.89 (strongly acidic).

MAP

• Colorless tetragonal crystals; MW 115.03; density 1.803 g/cm³; melting point 190 °C.

• Water solution is weakly acidic; 0.1 mol/L pH ≈ 4.4.

• Solubility in 100 g water at 10–25 °C: 9–40 g.

Key differences

1. Acidity: UP is much more acidic (1% pH 1.89) vs. MAP (weakly acidic).

2. Solubility: UP ≈ 1:1 dissolution; MAP 9–40%.

3. Melting point: UP lower (≈117 °C) vs. MAP 190 °C.

3) Synthesis Processes

Urea Phosphate

Reaction:H₃PO₄ + CO(NH₂)₂ → CO(NH₂)₂·H₃PO₄ (exothermic; temperature control prevents urea decomposition to NH₃ + CO₂)

Two routes by phosphoric acid source:

(A) Thermal-process H₃PO₄ (TPA) route

• Raw materials: high-purity TPA (from yellow phosphorus combustion & hydration, typically ≥85%) + industrial/food-grade urea.

• Acid–base neutralization yields stable UP crystals.

• Pros: Very low impurities (Fe/Al/Mg ≤ 0.1%); product purity ≥98%; bright appearance; good flowability.

• Cons: Consumes yellow phosphorus (high energy: ~14,000 kWh/t P); higher cost; yellow P is hazardous—higher safety requirements.

(B) Wet-process H₃PO₄ (WPA) route

• WPA is made by digesting phosphate rock with sulfuric acid; crude acid is impurity-rich and must be purified first.

• Impurities (Fe³⁺, Al³⁺, Mg²⁺, Ca²⁺, SO₄²⁻, F⁻) can form precipitates (e.g., FePO₄, AlPO₄), lowering purity and causing agglomeration; hence purification is critical.

• Mother liquor management is essential: contains uncrystallized UP, residual H₃PO₄/urea, and WPA-borne impurities; impurities can build up and reduce crystallization rates and quality. Recovery typically uses evaporation-concentration and stepwise crystallization. WPA mother liquor often contains fluoride (≈500–1000 mg/L) and organic extractants—requires deep treatment (e.g., defluorination, organic degradation) to meet discharge limits (e.g., F⁻ ≤ 10 mg/L).

• Pros: Lower raw-material cost (30–50% lower H₃PO₄ cost vs TPA); broad raw-material base; lower energy (20–30% lower per-ton UP).

• Cons: Complex purification (precipitation + solvent extraction; higher CAPEX/OPEX); higher residual impurities (≈0.3–0.8%); appearance may be slightly off-white; phosphogypsum and F-bearing wastewater require environmental treatment.

TPA vs WPA—Core Comparison

Dimension	Thermal H₃PO₄	Wet-process H₃PO₄
Main feed	TPA (≥85%) + urea	Purified WPA (50–60%) + urea
Product purity	98–99%, impurities ≤ 0.1%	95–97%, impurities 0.3–0.8%
Cost	Higher (yellow-P cost)	Lower (rock → WPA; purification manageable)
Energy	High (yellow-P production)	Lower (no yellow-P stage)
EHS	Yellow-P hazards; little wastewater	Phosphogypsum & F-bearing wastewater
Use cases	High-end ag, feed, pharma, flame retardants	Mid/low-end ag, water treatment, concrete set-retarders

In short: UP is the equimolar salt of urea and phosphoric acid. TPA route = high purity, higher cost; WPA route = lower cost, longer flowsheet, lower purity.

Monoammonium Phosphate (MAP)

Two mainstream routes:

1. TPA neutralized with ammonia (high-purity, water-soluble industrial MAP).

2. WPA neutralized with ammonia after deep purification (WPA cost ~20–30% lower than TPA; purity can approach TPA after proper refining).

   
   

   Industrial water-soluble MAP today is >90% produced via the TPA neutralization route due to mature technology and quality consistency.

4) In-Soil Behavior & Effects on Other Elements

Urea Phosphate—Applications & Agronomy

• Uses: non-protein nitrogen feed additive; fire-cleaning agents; flame retardants; dry chemical extinguishers; high-temp adhesives; intermediate for ammonium polyphosphate; and agriculture.

• Agronomic advantages as a base P–N source:

  • Controls soil pH (acidifies rhizosphere), curbing NH₃ volatilization and improving N-use efficiency.

  • In fertigation: low precipitate/scale, less emitter clogging, longer system life.

MAP—Applications & Agronomy

• Uses: yeast-culture P source; pharmaceuticals; drip-fertilizer; flame retardant; fire extinguisher; broad industrial uses.

• In agriculture: high-purity binary NP, fast-dissolving source for drip systems and WS NPK production.

• In soil: NH₄⁺ is readily adsorbed by negatively charged colloids; formed H₂PO₄⁻ is plant-available; phosphate coexisting with NH₄⁺ is efficiently taken up by roots. Ideal throughout crop growth.

Practical agronomic distinctions

1. pH control (UP): 1% solution pH 1.89; in soil, UP dissociates to urea + H₃PO₄ (releasing small amounts of CO₂/NH₃), lowering local pH, improving soil physicochemical properties and growth.

2. Lower NH₃ volatilization (UP): Acidification lowers NH₃ loss; UP can also slow urea hydrolysis → less NH₄⁺ accumulation → reduced volatilization.

3. Micronutrient availability (UP): In calcareous soils, Ca/Mg/Zn/Mn often precipitate at high pH. MAP can form insoluble Ca/Mg–phosphate precipitates, reducing immediate availability. UP increases H⁺, dissolving hydroxide precipitates, chelates Ca, and forms soluble (super)phosphate complexes—enhancing Ca/Mg/Zn/Mn availability.

4. Drip-system scaling (UP): For hard water (pH > 7.5), UP’s acidity increases Ca/Mg solubility, reducing scale and clogs and extending system life.

Bottom line: Both are NP fertilizers, but UP’s higher solubility and lower pH favor rhizosphere acidification, lower gaseous N losses, better Ca/Mg activation, and fewer drip clogs.

5) International Market Snapshot for Urea Phosphate

• Market size: ~USD 5.0 bn (2023); projected >USD 8.5 bn by 2030 (CAGR ≈6.5%).

  
  

• Demand drivers:

  • Agriculture (≈70%) in developing markets (e.g., India, Brazil) via fertigation and modernization.

  • Industrial (≈25%): flame retardants (plastics/textiles), pharma intermediates (laxatives), water treatment; high-purity (≥98%) demand in US/EU growing ~8%/yr.

  • Policy: EU “Sustainable Fertilizing Products” push for >70% P recovery by 2030 highlights UP’s role in circular use of WPA by-products.

  
  

• Regional patterns:

  • Asia (≈45% consumption): China & India key. China is largest producer (~42% capacity), exports ~0.8 Mt in 2023, mainly to SE Asia (VN, TH) and Africa (NG, KE).

  • North America & Europe: Industrial-grade focus; US & Germany hold ~60% of high-end market (BASF, Mosaic supply electronic-/pharma-grade).

  • Emerging markets: Africa & South America growing ~10%/yr, but infrastructure limits raise import dependence (e.g., South Africa ~70% UP from China).

6) Conclusion & Selection Guide

• Urea Phosphate (UP): higher N, lower P; very acidic, very soluble. Benefits include rhizosphere acidification, lower NH₃ volatilization, enhanced Ca/Mg/Zn/Mn availability, and reduced drip-irrigation scaling. Production cost/purity depend strongly on the TPA vs WPA route.

  
  

• MAP: higher P content, chemically stable, fast-acting NP source; ideal where crops/soils demand more P and when a balanced, stable input is preferred. Process is mature and cost-controllable; it remains a mainstream high-concentration phosphate.

Choose based on: soil pH/hardness, fertigation system, crop P demand, micronutrient strategy, and cost/quality requirements. This ensures maximum fertilizer efficiency and resource use.