. 2025 May 14;15(20):16088–16096. doi: 10.1039/d5ra02377g

Table 1. The chemical composition and herbicidal performance of phenylpyrazole derivatives subjected to 150 g a.i./hm² postemergence treatment in a greenhouse (25 ± 1 °C) experimental environment^a.

Compound	Chemical structure	Fresh weight inhibition rate (%)
Compound	R	EC	DS	SV	AT	AR	EP
7a	CH₃	0.0	13.2	7.5	8.5	79.3	5.5
7b	CH₂Cl	20.2	5.7	17.2	15.3	84.1	7.8
7c	CH₂ = CH	13.4	18.5	9.5	11.2	64.5	6.7
7d	CH₂ = CCH₃	5.3	21.2	22.3	16.3	60.3	15.6
7e	Phenyl	23.9	12.7	10.2	4.5	82.3	5.2
7f	p-methylphenyl	15.8	0.0	5.8	23.2	89.0	0.0
7g	o-methylphenyl	0.0	25.2	25.2	5.7	78.0	11.2
7h	m-methylphenyl	9.4	22.3	26.3	7.2	73.5	12.3
7i	p-methoxyphenyl	25.6	0.0	13.1	45.6	78.7	7.3
7j	p-chlorophenyl	11.6	13.5	0.0	0.0	76.3	0.0
7k	p-nitrophenyl	3.3	18.2	0.0	10.2	74.5	0.0
7l	p-trifluoromethylphenyl	6.3	10.2	3.2	0.0	78.3	0.0
CK	—	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Fomesafen	—	57.8	84.5	6.5	95.1	92.3	71.3

Fresh weight inhibition rate (%): (control group fresh weight – treatment group fresh weight)/control group fresh weight × 100%; EC: Echinochloa crusgalli; DS: Digitaria sanguinalis; SV: Setaria viridis; AT: Abutilon theophrasti; AR: Amaranthus retroflexus; EP: Eclipta prostrate. CK: controlcheck.

Table 1. The chemical composition and herbicidal performance of phenylpyrazole derivatives subjected to 150 g a.i./hm2 postemergence treatment in a greenhouse (25 ± 1 °C) experimental environmenta.

Table 1. The chemical composition and herbicidal performance of phenylpyrazole derivatives subjected to 150 g a.i./hm² postemergence treatment in a greenhouse (25 ± 1 °C) experimental environment^a.