Is formaldehyde effective in the production of glyphosate via the glycine method?
Thread Content
This post was last edited by halfeye on 2009-8-7 at 11:03. While reviewing patents recently, I came across one in which formaldehyde, produced as a by-product of the oxidation of methylal during the production of glyphosate using the glycine method, is added to the reaction mixture. To ensure full utilization of raw materials. This idea is very good, but in the production of glyphosate using the glycine method, is it really possible to use formaldehyde instead of polyformaldehyde? What is the actual effect? What are the advantages and disadvantages compared to paraformaldehyde? Additionally, can water really be present in the glycine process for glyphosate production? Thank you!
It seems like no one has done experiments in this area, haha
It seems that this area hasn’t yet been industrialized; currently, the price of methyl acetal is quite high, yet demand for it is good. In production, the moisture content of each raw material is allowed to be between 0.1% and 3%; of course, the lower the better.
3# Huang Jiayi, thank you! So, in the glycine method, formaldehyde is used in relatively small amounts? Moreover, since methyl acetal first needs to be converted into formaldehyde before it can be used in glyphosate production, this approach is likely not feasible in the short term either?
The reaction involves a high water content, along with numerous side reactions that intensify over time, which makes it difficult to control the production process. Therefore, in the industrial production of glyphosate using the glycolic acid method, industrial formaldehyde with a 37% water content cannot be used; instead, solid polyformaldehyde must be employed.
Considering the existing processes, costs, and equipment, it’s not necessary. I think it’s better to focus on researching the treatment of mother liquor; if you succeed, you’ll at least become a multimillionaire, haha.
The idea is good and it provides us with a direction, but the key lies in whether the cost is competitive; that is the prerequisite for being able to move forward. I still agree with the opinion from the sixth floor.
Replacing polyformaldehyde with formaldehyde seems unfeasible at present; formaldehyde typically has a concentration of 37%, with the highest levels being around 50%, and this inevitably introduces a large amount of moisture, making subsequent processing more difficult.
It seems that some glyphosate-producing companies using the IDA process have also started to use polyformaldehyde. It seems that using polymers is a trend
Of course, there can be no water; dimethyl ester decomposes immediately when it comes into contact with water
I work with polyoxymethylene! Methyl acetal to formaldehyde is achievable