Editorial policy
How we work and what we commit to
MoldCheck.pt is an independent editorial publication. This page explains our editorial principles, our sources, and what distinguishes us from other mold and damp resources.
Our editorial commitments
1. Independence from treatment
No financial conflict with remediation
MoldCheck.pt does not receive payments, commissions, or any form of compensation from companies that sell damp treatments, anti-mold products, ventilation systems, or remediation services.
This does not mean the site cannot charge for its own legitimate services or related activities, such as independent inspections, laboratory analysis, bookings, or digital resources. It means that we do not accept money from companies whose commercial interest depends on recommending or selling remediation.
When we recommend a product, method, or service, we do so because it has scientific basis or real usefulness for the user not because a remediation company paid us to recommend it.
2. Scientific basis
Peer-reviewed literature and recognised standards
All clinical and technical content on this site is grounded in peer-reviewed scientific literature or internationally recognised technical standards. Our primary sources include:
WHO Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality: Dampness and Mould (2009)
IICRC S520 Standard for Professional Mold Remediation, 4th edition (2024)
EPA Mold Remediation Guide
Institute of Medicine Damp Indoor Spaces and Health (2004)
Peer-reviewed research with explicit citation
3. Honesty about uncertainty
We separate robust evidence from suggestive evidence
The science of indoor mold is still actively developing. There are areas where evidence is robust and well established the causal link between dampness and respiratory symptoms, for example. There are areas where evidence is suggestive but not conclusive CIRS, and certain neurological effects of MVOCs. And there are areas where we simply do not know.
We distinguish these categories explicitly in our content. We do not overstate scientific certainty to create urgency, nor do we downplay documented risks to avoid alarming readers.
4. No risk exaggeration
Accuracy over fear
Residential mold is a real problem with documented health consequences. It is not a fatal emergency in most cases. Writing about mold with the objective of creating disproportionate fear whether to sell treatments or drive traffic is a practice this site explicitly rejects.
5. Transparency about limitations
This site does not replace professional assessment
This site does not replace professional medical advice, on-site technical assessment, or laboratory diagnosis. In health articles, this notice is displayed prominently.
6. Updates
We review and update when relevant evidence changes
We commit to reviewing and updating content when relevant new scientific evidence is published. The date of last review is indicated on each article.
7. Errors and corrections
Corrections are logged transparently
If you identify a factual error in our content, contact us. We correct transparently the original error, the correction, and the update date are all recorded.