Fernando Perina

Dr. Fernando Perina

CESAM & Department of Biology, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

16Years (2011-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
20 April 2021 in Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
BCBruno Galvão de Campos
Bruno Galvão de Campos
JFJoana Figueiredo
Joana Figueiredo
FPFernando Perina
Fernando Perina
Denis AbessaDenis Abessa
Denis Abessa
Susana LoureiroSusana Loureiro
Susana Loureiro
Roberto MartinsRoberto Martins
Roberto Martins
This review presents a comprehensive compilation of toxicological and environmental data, further used to assess the ecological risk (ERA) of the 11 EU approved antifouling biocides (PT21). Diuron, chlorothalonil, DCOIT, and pyrithiones are amongst the most toxic biocides toward producer species, while, CuSCN, medetomidine, and zineb showed higher toxicity toward consumers. In addition, medetomidine, CuSNC, zineb, Cu2O, and chlorothalonil are up to 400-fold more toxic to non-target organisms than target organisms highlighting their potential threat for marine ecosystems. Biocides hazard, which was assessed based on the marine PNECprobabilistic for biocides having enough and reliable ecotoxicological data, can be summarized in the following order: ZnPT (more hazardous) > CuPT > DCOIT > diuron > chlorothalonil > dichlofluanid > tolylfluanid. For the remaining biocides, the marine hazard was calculated based on the PNECdeterministic as follows: CuSCN (more hazardous) > Cu2O > medetomidine > zineb. The risk assessment indicates that the following biocides poses risk (quotient >1) for the coastal ecosystems: DCOIT, diuron, dichlofluanid, chlorothalonil, CuSCN, Cu2O, medetomidine and zineb. In order to protect the services and functions of coastal environments, a systematic and continuous monitoring of these biocides in coastal areas are highly recommended. Current regulatory framework and the replacement of state-of-the-art biocides by safer alternative is also critically discussed. Graphical abstract

1 December 2018 in Environmental Pollution
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Denis AbessaDenis Abessa
Denis Abessa
HAHeitor C. Albuquerque
Heitor C. Albuquerque
LMLucas G. Morais
Lucas G. Morais
GAGiuliana S. Araújo
Giuliana S. Araújo
TFTainá G. Fonseca
Tainá G. Fonseca
LBLucas M. Buruaem
Lucas M. Buruaem

5 May 2011 in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
ÍCÍtalo Castro
Ítalo Castro
FPFernando Perina
Fernando Perina
GFGilberto Fillmann
Gilberto Fillmann

1 November 2015 in Ecological Indicators
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
FGFabiane Gallucci
Fabiane Gallucci
ÍCÍtalo Castro
Ítalo Castro
FPFernando Perina
Fernando Perina
Denis AbessaDenis Abessa
Denis Abessa
ATAmanda de Paula Teixeira
Amanda de Paula Teixeira

28 June 2011 in Ecotoxicology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
FPFernando Perina
Fernando Perina
Denis AbessaDenis Abessa
Denis Abessa
GPGrasiela Lopes Leães Pinho
Grasiela Lopes Leães Pinho
GFGilberto Fillmann
Gilberto Fillmann

1 September 2019 in Environmental Pollution
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MVMariana Vezzone
Mariana Vezzone
RCRicardo Cesar
Ricardo Cesar
Denis AbessaDenis Abessa
Denis Abessa
ASAline Serrano
Aline Serrano
RLRodrigo Lourenço
Rodrigo Lourenço
HPHelena Polivanov
Helena Polivanov