*Article* **Securing Smokefree Laws Covering Casinos and Bars in Louisiana via Messaging, Continuous Campaigning and Health Coalitions**

**Tanner D. Wakefield and Stanton A. Glantz \***

Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143-1390, USA; tanner.wakefield@ucsf.edu

**\*** Correspondence: stanton.glantz@sonic.net; Tel.: +1-415-564-4801

**Abstract:** In this paper, we examine efforts by health organizations seeking comprehensive smokefree ordinances over Louisiana casinos and bars between 2010 and 2020 to determine best practices for increasing coverage. Bars and casinos remain less protected from secondhand smoke compared to other workplaces in the United States. Casino behavior is compared to the Policy Dystopia Model (PDM), a tobacco industry strategy framework. We performed a historical case study using snowball searches for news on the Access World News Database and the internet. We performed web searches using the names of key actors, organizations, and locations and interviewed nine participants. Starting in 2010, the Louisiana Campaign for Tobacco-Free Living ran ordinance campaigns supplemented by an ongoing statewide smokefree media initiative. Utilizing consistent strategies, including promoting performers as cultural emblems deserving protection, health organizations coalesced in New Orleans during 2014 and Baton Rouge in 2016 and 2017 to pursue ordinances. The coalitions secured ordinances in Louisiana's population and tourism centers despite business resistance. Organizations obtained 30 smokefree laws across Louisiana by 2021. Casinos used PDM strategies to resist ordinances, indicating the framework may predict strategies by non-tobacco entities resisting tobacco control. Louisiana shows that ongoing local campaigns, social justice themes and cultural messaging with coalitions in cities can secure smokefree laws covering casinos and bars and that local ordinance campaigns are a viable method for advancing smokefree protections over those venues in states where the state legislatures are resistant to action.

**Keywords:** smokefree; industry; regulation; advocacy; tobacco control

## **1. Introduction**

As of January 2022, casinos remain less protected by smokefree laws than other workplaces despite implementation of temporary policies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of 36 U.S. states having smoking restrictions as of October 2021, 20 have prohibited smoking in casinos and 30 in bars [1]. COVID-19 led to commercial casinos in New Jersey [2], Pennsylvania [3] and Michigan [4] and over 160 sovereign tribal casinos implementing temporary smokefree indoor air policies, starting debates on making them permanent. In November 2021, the Navajo Nation made all its casinos permanently smokefree as part of a larger clean indoor air law [5].

The years-long battle for smokefree laws in Louisiana helped lay the foundation for local ordinances there covering bars and casinos. The 2006 Louisiana Smoke-Free Air Act, passed with support from advocates who had sought to replace ineffective statewide smokefree laws since 2001, exempted bars and casinos [6]. The Coalition for a Tobacco-Free Louisiana (CTFLA), consisting of national and state health organizations, accepted the exemptions to avoid political resistance. Significantly, the law repealed state preemption of stronger local ordinances enacted with tobacco industry support. Since the 2006 law did not cover all workplaces and political inertia at the state level prevented comprehensive

**Citation:** Wakefield, T.D.; Glantz, S.A. Securing Smokefree Laws Covering Casinos and Bars in Louisiana via Messaging, Continuous Campaigning and Health Coalitions. *Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health* **2022**, *19*, 3936. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph19073936

Academic Editors: Ashok Kumar, M Amirul I Khan, Alejandro Moreno Rangel and Michał Piasecki

Received: 15 February 2022 Accepted: 23 March 2022 Published: 25 March 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

statewide smokefree legislation, health organizations pursued local smokefree ordinances starting in 2011 to extend smokefree policy coverage to bars and casinos. Louisiana's nonprofit tobacco control program, Louisiana Campaign for Tobacco-Free Living (TFL), working with national, state and local organizations (including as a member of CTFLA), secured 30 local laws between 2011 and 2021 [7] despite resistance from the bar and gaming industries. The local smokefree ordinance battles in Louisiana provide insight into overcoming political opposition and securing smokefree laws for workplaces not yet protected by state laws.

To understand the success of campaigns pursuing comprehensive local smokefree ordinances covering bars and casinos in Louisiana, we analyzed the efforts of advocates and health organizations to pass local laws between 2011 and 2021. We found that health organizations overcame industry opposition to smokefree bars and casino interests with innovative campaigns expanding upon established smokefree organizing tactics [8–12] (extended and consistent media campaigns and news media engagement on secondhand smoke, messaging focusing on health and workplace protection, multilevel alliances, local organizing and countering industry claims) by integrating jazz musicians in messaging and campaign events to highlight how smokefree laws would protect employees as well as promote local culture.

This paper also tests the applicability of the Policy Dystopia Model [13] (PDM) for predicting non-tobacco industry behavior against smoking restriction laws. The PDM is a framework that was developed to understand tobacco industry discursive and instrumental strategies against taxes and advertising restriction legislation. Discursive strategies outlined by the PDM focus on predicting secondary adverse social and economic outcomes of tobacco control legislation while instrumental strategies include coalition building, litigation, information management and policy interference to support tobacco industry positions. While the model was created by analyzing tobacco industry behavior against tax increases and advertising restrictions, it has been used to interpret tobacco industry opposition to smokefree laws in countries outside the United States [11,14]. The tobacco industry mobilized opposition nationally against smokefree policies in bars and casinos since the 1990s by arguing smokefree laws harmed those businesses in order to develop alliances with trade associations [15,16]. We compared casino industry behavior directed against smokefree ordinances in New Orleans and Baton Rouge to categories of arguments and strategies outlined by the PDM to determine if a non-tobacco industry would use tactics established by the model when opposing tobacco control policies. Louisiana's experience shows that the PDM can be used to understand and anticipate gaming industry tactics against smokefree policies.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

We performed a case study to understand health organization tactics and activities around passing local smokefree laws in Louisiana that combined information from the documentary record with key informant interviews. Snowball searches [17] were conducted for news on the Access World News Database, Google, and websites for the *Times-Picayune*/nola.com (New Orleans) and *The Advocate* (Baton Rouge) between 2000 and 2020. Search terms included "smoking," "smoking restrictions," and "ordinance," followed by searches of key actors, organizations and locations. Key actors were those involved as campaign officials, operatives or representatives from business, government or advocacy organizations supporting or opposing smokefree ordinances. Key organizations were industry associations, businesses and health organizations that were involved in smokefree advocacy or policy campaigns as supporters or opponents, while locations were places where smokefree legislation was debated. News stories were read and cited if they added context or information on campaign activities, attitudes, messaging or strategies to local smokefree ordinance battles.

Interviews were conducted with employees from 3 national and 4 state health organization representatives. Participants were approached if they served as health organization

staff involved in local ordinance efforts, media messaging or were campaign officials in the New Orleans or Baton Rouge smokefree law campaigns in Louisiana. Interviews were performed under a protocol approved by the UCSF Committee on Human Research. We did not track who declined interviews, nor did we approach opponents of smokefree legislation for interviews since the focus of our research was on health organization strategies. Interview questions were unstructured and questions were developed organically based on information collected during research and prior interviews. Interviews were transcribed. TW and SAG have interacted with some of the interviewees at public health meetings. Two interviewees (Cynthia Hallett and Jennifer Cofer) serve on the external advisory committee for the UCSF Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education.

Our paper particularly analyzes smokefree battles in New Orleans and Baton Rouge. Both cities warranted focus because they are the largest population and tourism centers within Louisiana, they manifested the most intense efforts by casino entities to defeat smokefree coalitions and smokefree legislation, and represented the largest deployments of health organizations' planning, coalition building and resources. New Orleans and Baton Rouge were two of three jurisdictions among the 30 towns and cities that prohibited smoking in bars and casinos in Louisiana that had operating casinos at the time the law was being debated.

We analyzed gaming industry behavior from smokefree ordinance campaigns in New Orleans and Baton Rouge to determine similarities and differences with tobacco industry tactics outlined by the PDM. We compared data to the PDM's discursive and instrumental categories and subcategories. Arguments and activities that matched the PDM were placed in the corresponding category.

There are two reference lists for this paper. The references enclosed in square brackets and preceded with "S" refer to original source materials and appear in the Supplement File.

#### **3. Results**

#### *3.1. Laying the Groundwork with a Focused Media Campaign*

TFL launched a paid advertising and social media campaign "Let's Be Totally Clear" in 2010 to advocate for employees and musicians' rights to smokefree air [18]. The campaign directed viewers to TFL's website with advocacy resources [19]. Rebranded as "Healthier Air For All" in 2012 according to one interviewee [20], the campaign generated capacity for ordinances.

#### *3.2. Local Campaigns Build Support*

TFL initially won comprehensive ordinances in localities without significant gaming industry presence, beginning in Alexandria in 2011 [21] after it responded favorably to TFL's media campaign and grassroots education efforts according to one interviewee [22]. TFL organized smokefree events, provided promotional packages to bars and bingo halls and advertised on billboards and social media. One interviewee stated that TFL conducted air quality studies finding hazardous secondhand smoke (SHS) levels in local bars, prepared packets for lawmakers and recruited and trained speakers for hearings [22]. A law was passed, and TFL ran local ads to assist with its implementation [23].

Five additional municipalities adopted ordinances between 2012 and 2014 (Table 1), providing experience to pursue laws in New Orleans, Baton Rouge and elsewhere. While most locations that adopted comprehensive smokefree legislation covering bars and casinos did not host casinos such as New Orleans or Baton Rouge, the laws generated momentum and normalization for prohibiting smoking in places that had casinos.


**Table 1.** Localities in Louisiana with 100% Smokefree Laws including Casinos [7,24,25].

\* Casino operating when ordinance was being considered.

TFL conducted research and ran its media campaign in New Orleans to generate support for an ordinance. It produced five studies on SHS and air quality, the economy and health relevant to New Orleans between 2011 and 2014 [26,27] using "Healthier Air for All and an affiliated statewide smokefree concert series held there in May 2014 [28].

#### *3.3. Smokefree NOLA*

In August 2014, CTFLA members formed Smokefree NOLA (the acronym for New Orleans) (Table 2). Four interviewees recalled that the coalition formed after New Orleans councilmember LaToya Cantrell told health organizations she was introducing a comprehensive ordinance [29,30]. Smokefree NOLA (SFNOLA) shared TFL's statewide media campaign's themes and branding [23,31].


**Table 2.** Composition of the Smokefree NOLA and Smoke-Free East Baton Rouge Coalitions [27,29,30,32].

SFNOLA branding celebrated New Orleans's culture and musical heritage while linking with Healthier Air For All [23,29,31,33] (Figure 1). One interviewee stated SFNOLA recruited musician spokespersons through the Louisiana Cultural Economy Foundation [34], which helped performers obtain economic assistance and healthcare [35]. TFL had partnered with the foundation since 2011 to hold smokefree music events [34]. Musicians wrote letters and attended hearings and campaign events [36].

**Figure 1.** Smokefree NOLA Campaign Logo used the fleur-de-lis, a symbol of New Orleans' French origins, and a trumpet, reflecting the city's jazz legacy.

SFNOLA held "Smoke-Free Week 2.0" in November 2014 to promote smoking restrictions [37] during the American Public Health Association's (APHA) annual meeting (around 12,000 attendees [38]) in New Orleans [39]. The ordinance was introduced on the last day of Smoke-Free Week [37,40].

SFNOLA leveraged APHA's meeting to press for legislation [29,30], with four interviewees recalling the coalition persuading APHA to declare it would not meet again in New Orleans unless the city adopted an ordinance meeting APHA's smokefree meetings policy [41]. The American Heart Association, which held a large meeting (17,000 attendees [42]) in New Orleans every few years also threatened to avoid the city until a law was enacted [43].

SFNOLA organized promotions to engage the public. During Smoke-Free Week 2.0 it held a traditional New Orleans second line parade [44] that rallied for the ordinance at APHA's meeting [45]. According to two interviewees, the coalition hosted smokefree events at LGBT and African-American bars, industry nights for service employees and placed announcements in churches [30]. It held a townhall [30,46], prayer breakfast and rally in January [46] and other events promoted on TFL's Healthier Air for All website [36].

SFNOLA obtained USD 2.8 million in earned media by February 2015 [47] and funded advertising using partner contributions.

#### *3.4. Business Opposition*

Gaming, bar and restaurant entities formed the Freedom to Choose Coalition to oppose the ordinance. One founder, Harrah's [48], operated Louisiana's only land-based casino. Other participants were the Louisiana Amusement and Music Operators Association, Louisiana Video Gaming Association, Louisiana Casino Association [49], French Quarter Business League, Louisiana Restaurant Association (LRA) and Louisiana Association of Wholesalers (LAW) [49]. LRA helped the tobacco industry resist statewide smokefree legislation in the 1980s and 1990s [6]. Altria and other tobacco companies sponsored LAW in 2015 [50] and its executive director worked for Philip Morris as a coordinator during the 1990s [51,52]. LAW's director also had Altria (Philip Morris) as his lobbying firm's client [53].

New Orleans' vapers fought to exclude e-cigarettes from the ordinance [6], including speaking at the subcommittee hearing. According to two interviewees, local e-cigarette retailers formed the Louisiana Association of Electronic Cigarette Retailers (LAECR) to oppose the ordinance [30]. An out-of-state retailer [54] and the national Consumer Advocates for Smoke Free Alternatives Association [55] supplemented LAECR with action alerts encouraging e-cigarette advocates to attend town halls and contact lawmakers.

#### *3.5. Hearings*

The New Orleans City Council considered the ordinance at a subcommittee hearing on 7 January [56] and a full hearing on 22 January [57].

The subcommittee started with a panel of health experts, a musician and a nightclub owner who testified on SHS's dangers [56], countered economic harm claims and argued workers lacked choice regarding working in smoke. TFL provided councilmembers with briefs containing studies on air quality, SHS exposure, health effects, and the economic impact of smokefree laws [26,56].

At the hearings, health professionals, health organization representatives and residents supported the ordinance after being prepared by SFNOLA according to two interviewees [30]. They highlighted policy benefits, refuted economic harm claims [56,57], and argued smokefree laws protected employees and performers and their cultural contributions. They argued ventilation and smoking areas could not protect people from SHS and that e-cigarettes were underregulated and contained harmful components in aerosols.

Freedom to Choose argued the ordinance would harm businesses and employees, reduce tourism, lower tax revenue, drive customers to neighboring casinos and limit choice [56,57].

Harrah's contracted with the state for its gaming license [58] and had a city lease [59]. The state contract prevented employment below 2455, while the lease required enhanced severance packages for employees terminated below 2550 [59]. Harrah's claimed resulting revenue losses justified reducing employment required by its contract [56], a number it wanted lowered since 2007 [60].

Vaping proponents tried excluding e-cigarettes from the ordinance, arguing e-cigarettes are healthier than cigarettes and aid cessation [56]. They questioned research [56] and referenced statements from public health officials supporting legal access to e-cigarettes or their harm reduction potential including FDA Center for Tobacco Products Director Mitch Zeller and UK Royal College of Physicians Tobacco Advisory Group Chair John Britton [56]. LAECR referenced a World Health Organization letter advocating against prohibiting e-cigarettes [56]. (We could not locate any such letter.) LAECR accused the Council of succumbing to threats of losing conferences [57].

The Council unanimously adopted the ordinance on 22 January 2015 [57], effective 22 April [61].

#### *3.6. Health Organizations Support Implementation despite Industry Resistance*

SFNOLA members assisted with implementation. According to two interviewees, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights (ANR), a national organization, organized a meeting between the New Orleans Health Department and southern health officials to learn implementation strategies [29]. Four interviewees recalled that ANR helped fund the department's implementation website and toolkits [29,30,36]. SFNOLA provided promotional materials to casinos and bars, advertised and sent education teams to local events.

Harrah's resisted the ordinance, announcing in March 2015 that it sought exemptions to its contract because of expected revenue declines [62]. It offered to create smoking sections [63] and offered cessation services and smoking education to employees and customers to be exempted [63]. Harrah's claimed the law threatened its lease payments and USD 3.6 million annually to New Orleans [63]. Harrah's claimed it could renegotiate its lease if the city refused, which city officials rejected [62].

Harrah's and 54 other bars, restaurants and strip clubs filed a class action lawsuit against the ordinance, claiming procedural errors and that the legislation was vague [64]. The court dismissed the case [65].

Harrah's partnered with a state senator to introduce legislation allowing renegotiation of its state contract [60,66], including reducing Harrah's employment requirement [67]. The Senate Judiciary Committee delayed consideration after a member found New Orleans officials were unaware of the attempted employment reduction [67]. New Orleans' officials opposed the bill; the Committee rejected it [60].

The State Legislature's Joint Budget Committee twice refused to renew the Louisiana Gaming Control Board's contract with New Orleans for hosting Harrah's, slowing USD 3.6 million [68], as threatened by Harrah's [63]. Altria and Harrah's shared lobbyists supported Harrah's request with the committee [68], but the contract was renewed without change.

Health organizations did not join this debate.

Harrah's complied with New Orleans' ordinance upon effect in April 2015 [69], but blamed it for revenue declines in May, June and August 2015 compared to the prior year; Harrah's' profits increased in July and September [70].

Health organizations contested Harrah's economic assertions. TFL released a study in July 2015 finding Harrah's was experiencing a 10-year revenue decline because of unrelated factors [71]. Harrah's failed to resist the law, eventually building outdoor smoking courtyards for gaming [72].

A June 2015 air quality study found that hazardous indoor air quality improved to safe levels [73].

#### *3.7. Forming Another Coalition for Baton Rouge in 2016*

Louisiana's state capitol, Baton Rouge, and its parish, East Baton Rouge, have a consolidated government [74]. Health organizations, many involved in CTFLA and SFNOLA, formed the Smoke-Free East Baton Rouge Coalition (SFEBR; Table 2) to pursue an ordinance.

A community meeting launched the campaign in January 2016 [75]. A SFEBR representative spoke to the local Rotary about protecting employees from SHS [76] and SFEBR hosted smokefree events, including a happy hour, karaoke night and music performance [77]. The American Association of Retired Persons Louisiana Chapter, Miss Louisiana, Baton Rouge musicians [78] and local hospitals and medical groups endorsed the coalition [79,80].

SFEBR spent approximately USD 300,000 on advertising in its first six months for radio, billboards, social media and television [81]. The coalition disseminated SHS facts, articles on smokefree policies, casino employee testimonials and action alerts via social media [77,82].

#### *3.8. Opposition*

Gaming industry resistance started in March 2016. L'Auberge Casino owner, Pinnacle Entertainment, claimed the law would reduce income and tax revenue, referencing fallen profits after smoking bans [83,84]. In April, as hearings neared, Baton Rouge's three casinos claimed they expected the ordinance to inflict economic harm, reduce tax revenues, disadvantage them with smoking venues and potentially reduce their purchases from local vendors [85]. They argued that SHS was not problematic in employee surveys and the ordinance would harm workers by lowering business and tips [85].

#### *3.9. Hearings*

East Baton Rouge's Metro-Parish Council considered the ordinance in April 2016 [86]. Health organization representatives, doctors, nurses, entertainers, faith leaders and casino employees asserted the ordinance protected personal rights and health and did not harm businesses, particularly casinos.

Gaming officials and workers testified that smokefree laws harmed casino and tax revenue and reduced purchases from local vendors [86]. They argued that working in SHS was a choice and asserted that ventilation made the ordinance unnecessary, a common tobacco industry argument [16,86]; ventilation cannot prevent harmful SHS exposure [87]. L'Auberge employees and officials claimed workers desiring smokefree areas were accommodated [86]. The Council voted six to six, defeating the ordinance [86].

#### *3.10. Pursuing Ordinances throughout Louisiana*

Municipalities, many with TFL's assistance, won ordinances in seven Louisiana communities between 2015 and 2017 (Table 1) to build capacity [6].

#### *3.11. The Second Baton Rouge Campaign in 2017*

SFEBR announced in May 2017 that it would pursue another ordinance [88]. and in June, 7 out of 12 East Baton Rouge Metro-Councilmembers co-sponsored legislation [89].

The coalition disseminated information, secured endorsements and held events to support the ordinance. It released a poll showing local women supported a law by 79% and college educated women supported the law by 69% [90]. SFEBR organized a smokefree bar night, happy hours, music performances, a comedy night and a dance night, and circulated flyers, informational videos, tobacco health statistics, news, blog posts and lawmakers' contact information [77,82]. It also partnered with Miss Black Louisiana U.S. Ambassador LeighAnna Kingvalsky for promotional efforts [77,91], Three ordinance sponsors participated in a local radio show [92–94]. SFEBR secured letters in the Baton Rouge *Advocate* [91,95] and released an air quality study on local casinos and bars finding unhealthy air conditions [96].

#### *3.12. Hearings*

The Baton Rouge Metro-Parish Council considered the second ordinance in June [97] and August 2017 [98].

Coalition members, health representatives, city employees, performers, bar industry members and locals supported the ordinance [97,98]. They highlighted SHS's harms and costs, asserted the right to smokefree workplaces, discussed local bars and casinos' poor air quality and how smokefree policies improved public health. Proponents countered claims that restrictions harm income and that ventilation systems "solve" SHS. They reported 20 states and various localities prohibited smoking in casinos.

Opponents argued smokefree laws cost jobs, profits, employee income and tax revenue. They asserted customers and employees chose to frequent casinos [97,98] while claiming workers wanting smokefree environments were accommodated, that most employees did not work in smoking areas, and that ventilation protected people.

Baton Rouge lawmakers approved the ordinance with an effective date of 1 June 2018 [98].

SFEBR supported implementation by promoting the law and SHS's harmfulness on social media, sponsoring events [77,99], producing implementation toolkits [100] and educating Baton Rouge police about the ordinance [101]. An air quality survey conducted a month after implementation found a 98.8% improvement in air quality in places that previously allowed smoking [102].

#### **4. Discussion**

Louisiana illustrates how health organizations can shift to local campaigns to secure ordinances covering bars and casinos when state progress is blocked. Local governments are more responsive to constituents where the tobacco industry [103] and other sectors [104] have less influence on policymaking. After state smoking restrictions stagnated following 2006, Louisiana health organizations pursued local comprehensive ordinances covering casinos and bars, enabled by the 2006 repeal of preemption. Louisiana organizations sustained their partnerships after 2006, allowing deployment of an existing coalition network that facilitated cooperation [105] to pass comprehensive local ordinances over business resistance. Starting in 2011, TFL secured ordinances using policy campaigns supported by its "Let's Be Totally Clear/Healthier Air for All" media initiative. Efforts to pass local smokefree ordinances in Louisiana serve as a model for passing comprehensive protections in states that currently lack statewide smokefree protections for bars and casinos because of political resistance at the state legislature, as long as they are not preempted by state law.

#### *4.1. A Theoretical Framework: The Policy Dystopia Model*

The PDM [13] identifies two forms of resistance, discursive and instrumental. Discursive arguments seek to cast regulation as economically harmful to the economy or society, as criminalizing or crime generating, are unbeneficial to public health, regressive, ineffective, beneficial to undeserving interests and a form of government overreach as well as harmful to business interests and employees. Instrumental tactics include funneling information to the public that benefits the industry's image and position, hides its role in information sharing, weakens public health organizations' claims and standing and portrays the regulation as ineffective. Other instrumental strategies include recruiting or manufacturing allies, breaking public health alliances, suing and directly interfering in the policy process.

Louisiana indicates the gaming industry, which has opposed smoking restrictions in partnership with the tobacco industry [16], deployed PDM tactics (Table 3). In New Orleans and Baton Rouge, they claimed the ordinances would inflict economic and tax harm while denying their effectiveness. Harrah's formed a coalition, participated in a class action lawsuit and interfered in legislative and contractual processes in attempts to block the New Orleans ordinance. None of the casinos in New Orleans or Baton Rouge used PDM strategies such as discursive arguments that smokefree policies benefited undeserving groups or

inadvertently harmed public health, nor did they engage in illicit trade. Gaming industry strategies indicate that, similar to the tobacco industry, they seek external institutional lanes to failing policy venues where they have more influence. Louisiana shows that the PDM can be used to understand industry opposition to smokefree laws inside and outside the Unites States [11,14], not just opposition to advertising restrictions and taxes, which were used to develop the PDM.

#### *4.2. Health Coalition Effectiveness in Countering Industry Political Influence*

TFL's ongoing "Healthier Air for All" media campaign on the effects of SHS [106] and social justice themes [107] facilitated ordinance campaigns across Louisiana. TFL supplemented these general messages with SHS-impacted musicians and other performers to equate smokefree environments to preserving local culture, while also messaging the need for workplace protections. Focusing on policy solutions through those impacted by a policy change reoriented the media narrative from victim responsibility to a public issue [108]. Cobranded local campaigns tied smoking restrictions to a statewide movement, using norm changes to enable victories.

In Louisiana, as in other successful campaigns inside [8,9] and outside [10,11] the United States, joining with health organizations at higher political levels provided resources and expertise to combat well-financed and coordinated industry resistance. Louisiana's framing around musicians and performers, workers and customers in an adult rights and cultural context, as opposed to youth as was conducted in Duluth Minnesota [8], facilitated the passage of stronger ordinances than in Duluth, where focusing on youth led to weak restrictions allowing smoking sections in restaurants, exemptions for some restaurants and smoking in bars.

SFNOLA and SFEBR's aggressive media engagement via events and outreach as well as advertisements countered casino industry claims of economic harm and highlighted the need to protect workers. This experience is consistent with Mexico City, where a coalition of international and state organizations obtained and defended a smokefree law [10]. The Mexico City campaign, similar to the Louisiana campaigns, had dedicated legislative champions and promoted the protective and beneficial qualities of smokefree laws. Comparing local campaigns in Louisiana, El Paso [9] and Mexico City [10] to Duluth [8] indicates that consistent media outreach, messaging around worker and public protection, collaborating with strong legislative champions, countering opponents' economic arguments and relying on support from larger health organizations are essential to campaigns seeking comprehensive legislation.

#### *4.3. Limitations*

This paper relies on interviews and testimony from people involved with government and health organizations. Our findings from interviews may be influenced by personal bias, as not all health organization participants were interviewed, or by recall bias since years have passed from the events covered. Interviews were conducted between 2014 and 2017, so subjects could have forgotten or recalled details incorrectly. We were unable to obtain detailed funding information for local campaigns in Louisiana, preventing analysis of the financial asymmetry between smokefree proponents and opponents. We relied on news coverage and hearings to analyze bar and gaming industry behavior, because in the past, representatives from these groups consistently declined to be interviewed. We may have missed clandestine tobacco industry involvement.

**Table 3.** Comparison of the Policy Dystopia Model and use of its Tobacco Industry Discursive and Instrumental Strategies by the Gaming Industry in Major Louisiana Policy Battles [6,13].


casino industry.

#### **5. Conclusions**

Louisiana health organizations secured 30 local smokefree laws covering casinos and bars, including in New Orleans and Baton Rouge, between 2011 and 2021. Louisiana's experience indicates that effective established strategies for enacting smokefree laws (a sustained media campaign, local organizing, polling and countering industry claims) can be combined with an emphasis on worker protections and local culture to mount successful campaigns to enact smokefree laws.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, T.D.W. and S.A.G.; methodology, T.D.W. and S.A.G.; software: NA; validation: NA; formal Analysis, T.D.W. and S.A.G.; investigation, T.D.W.; resources: S.A.G.; data curation, T.D.W.; writing—original draft preparation, T.D.W.; writing—review and editing, T.D.W. and S.A.G.; visualization: NA; supervision, S.A.G.; project administration, S.A.G.; funding acquisition, S.A.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This work was supported by a National Cancer Institute grant R01CA061021, the National Institute on Drug Abuse Cancer grant R01DA043950 and the William Cahan Professorship to Glantz from the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute. The funding agencies played no role in the conduct of the research or preparation of the manuscript.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Interviews were conducted under protocol 10-01262, approved by the UCSF Committee on Human Research.

**Informed Consent Statement:** All interviewees granted informed consent.

**Data Availability Statement:** Interviews have been deposited in the UCSF Tobacco Control Archive, maintained by Archives and Special Collections at the UCSF Library. All other materials are publicly available at the cited sources.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article. Glantz serves as a consultant to the World Health Organization on other projects.

#### **References**


## *Article* **Indoor Air Quality Assessment of Latin America's First Passivhaus Home**

**Alejandro Moreno-Rangel 1,2,\*, Filbert Musau 1, Tim Sharpe 1,3 and Gráinne McGill 1,3**


**Abstract:** Sustainable building design, such as the Passivhaus standard, seeks to minimise energy consumption, while improving indoor environmental comfort. Very few studies have studied the indoor air quality (IAQ) in Passivhaus homes outside of Europe. This paper presents the indoor particulate matter (PM2.5), carbon dioxide (CO2), and total volatile organic compounds (tVOC) measurements of the first residential Passivhaus in Latin America. It compares them to a standard home in Mexico City. Low-cost monitors were installed in the bedroom, living room, and kitchen spaces of both homes, to collect data at five-minute intervals for one year. The physical measurements from each home were also compared to the occupants' IAQ perceptions. The measurements demonstrated that the Passivhaus CO2 and tVOC annual average levels were 143.8 ppm and 81.47 μg/m3 lower than the standard home. The PM2.5 in the Passivhaus was 11.13 μg/m<sup>3</sup> lower than the standard home and 5.75 μg/m3 lower than outdoors. While the results presented here cannot be generalised, the results suggest that Passivhaus dwellings can provide better and healthier indoor air quality in Latin America. Further, large-scale studies should look at the indoor environmental conditions, energy performance, and dwelling design of Passivhaus dwellings in Latin America.

**Keywords:** Passivhaus; indoor air quality (IAQ); Latin America; particulate matter (PM2.5); carbon dioxide (CO2); total volatile organic compounds (tVOC)

#### **1. Introduction**

Sustainable building design is in constant evolution; such a process has been emphasised due to climate change issues. Sustainable architecture aims to deliver buildings that balance their ecological impact, and even go further. The construction industry has faced significant challenges, to reduce energy demand while providing better indoor environmental quality [1]. Buildings have reduced heat losses through the building envelope and introduced active and passive techniques to reduce energy use further. However, these changes have been mainly motivated by environmental concerns, energy prices, and an increased demand for housing [2]. Other factors, such as indoor environmental comfort and health, have not been addressed adequately in the past, but have seen increased attention, particularly indoor air quality (IAQ); after the COVID-19 lockdowns [3,4]. Different organisations have developed benchmarking systems and certifications to promote and recognise energy-efficient buildings through different design and construction criteria. Some examples include BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment), LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), and the Passivhaus standard, on which this work is based.

A Passive House, or 'Passivhaus', which is the original German term, is '[...] a building, for which thermal comfort (ISO 7730) can be achieved solely by post-heating or post-cooling of the fresh air mass, which is required to achieve sufficient indoor air quality conditions—without the need for additional recirculation of air [5]'. Nevertheless, the

**Citation:** Moreno-Rangel, A.; Musau, F.; Sharpe, T.; McGill, G. Indoor Air Quality Assessment of Latin America's First Passivhaus Home. *Atmosphere* **2021**, *12*, 1477. https://doi.org/10.3390/ atmos12111477

Academic Editor: Ashok Kumar, Amirul I Khan, Alejandro Moreno Rangel and Michał Piasecki

Received: 4 October 2021 Accepted: 3 November 2021 Published: 8 November 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

Passivhaus does not have specific criteria for IAQ and relies on the DIN1946 suggested airflow rates to manage ventilation and, hence, the removal of indoor air pollutants. The German standard DIN1946 establishes air flow rates between 0.5 and 1.0 ach<sup>−</sup>1, suggesting that these ventilation rates should be sufficient to avoid CO2 peaks above 1500 ppm.

The Passivhaus standard is based on five fundamental concepts: thermal insulation, thermal bridge-reduced design, airtightness, adequate ventilation strategy (usually through mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR) systems), and the use of Passivhaus windows and doors (for a detailed explanation of the Passivhaus principles see [6]). Additionally, the building must adhere to strict design criteria detailed in the Passive House Planning Package (PHPP, currently version 9) [7]. Although the Passivhaus standard was first developed for cold central European countries, its methodology has been introduced to warmer climates such as those found in Latin America.

Between 1990 and 2005, a few Passivhaus homes were built, mainly in cold climates from European countries. The interest in Passivhaus buildings has expanded outside of Europe. According to the Passivhaus Institute in Latin America (ILAPH), the uptake of the Passivhaus standard in Latin America started in 2010 with a non-residential Passivhaus pilot building in Chile. However, it was not until 2014 that the first dwelling received certification, in Mexico. Since then, other dwellings have achieved certification, but have only been subject to scientific scrutiny through virtual modelling, mainly through the PHPP; until now. These studies show evidence of the thermal comfort [8], energy [9,10], economic [11,12], and environmental [13] performance, as well as the feasibility [14,15] of Passivhaus buildings in Latin America. Their measured performance evaluation is limited to thermal comfort [16], energy [17], or limited to short (≤3 months) term studies [18]. Passivhaus dwellings have attracted scientific scrutiny of their energy performance [19–21], thermal comfort [22–25], and IAQ [21,26–29] in other parts of the world.

Indoor air quality (IAQ) refers to the indoor concentration of air pollutants that can harm human wellbeing [30]. Nevertheless, what constitutes safe or adequate levels is a current debate. Some authors claim that this should be a complete absence of air contaminants [31]. In contrast, others suggest that low concentrations, which are not detrimental to public health, are acceptable [32]. In 2000, the World Health Organisation (WHO) recognised healthy air as a human right [33] and published guidelines for safe thresholds of different indoor air pollutants [34]. The Passivhaus standard does not explicitly address off-gassing from building materials or other air pollution issues in buildings. Instead, it relies on ventilation rates (30 m3/h per person or 0.3 ach/h) to achieve acceptable levels. Hence, IAQ in Passivhaus dwellings is a topic that has captivated the interest of researchers.

Several studies [35–39] suggest that Passivhaus dwellings have the means to achieve acceptable IAQ, even when compared to other non-Passivhaus homes [40–44]. However, very few have compared the measured IAQ to the occupant's IAQ perception [29,45,46]. Other studies show conflicting results, suggesting that the IAQ in a Passivhaus may not be adequate [47–49]. Some of the Passivhaus principles, airtightness and ventilation, directly impact the IAQ in homes. For instance, the required levels of airtightness (≤0.6 h-1 @50 Pa) in Passivhaus dwellings help avoid condensation and conserve energy by reducing air infiltration. However, it is unclear whether an airtight building envelope has clear IAQ benefits [39,50] or not [51]. Nevertheless, occupants' satisfaction with IAQ and indoor humidity is better than those living in non-Passivhaus dwellings [44].

A previous study [26] suggested further work on long-term studies, to understand the IAQ performance of Passivhaus worldwide, in climates different from those found in central European countries. To the authors' knowledge, this work is the first to measure and evaluate the long-term IAQ performance of a Passivhaus dwelling in Latin America. Indoor air quality parameters were measured using low-cost monitors with remote access capabilities. Additionally, the occupants' perception of IAQ was assessed and compared to the physical measurements. Finally, this paper discusses further work to support the development of the Passivhaus standard in Latin American countries. This work focuses on IAQ, as the thermal performance of this Passivhaus dwelling is discussed elsewhere [16].

#### **2. Method**

This study presents results from a monitoring campaign of a certified Passivhaus dwelling, and another built with the standard building practices in Mexico City. This campaign took place between 1 June 2016 and 31 May 2017. Locations with an Oceanic Subtropical Highland Climate (Cwb), such as Mexico City, are characterised by warm and wet summers, with dry and warmer winters [52]. Foobot was used to monitor air temperature (−40–125 ◦C; ±0.4 ◦C), relative humidity (0–100% RH; ±4% RH), particulate matter 2.5 <sup>μ</sup>m (PM2.5) (0–1300 <sup>μ</sup>g/m3; ±<sup>4</sup> <sup>μ</sup>g/m3 or ±20%), and total volatile organic compounds (tVOC) (125–1000 <sup>μ</sup>g/m3; ±<sup>1</sup> <sup>μ</sup>g/m3 or ±10%). As the Foobot does not have a dedicated carbon dioxide (CO2) sensor, a Netatmo (0–5000 ppm; ±50 ppm or 5%) was used for these measurements. The accuracy of both the Foobot [53] and Netatmo [54] monitors has been tested and validated for carrying out long-term IAQ monitoring. The calibration equations used in this study are described in greater detail in a previous study from our research group [53].

We adopted a novel monitoring methodology for this research, avoiding researcher visits to the homes. Instead, the participants were asked to install the monitors and asked for the surveys online, as described in [55]. They received a pack with information on how to operate the monitors and where to place them. These monitors were used as they could be deployed remotely, with remote data collection, and were acceptable to the building owners who installed them. The Foobot monitors were installed in the living room, kitchen, and bedroom, while the Netatmos were only placed in the living room and bedroom. The sensors collected data continuously at five-minute intervals, for one year. As this was a long-term study, using these low-cost monitors for outdoor monitoring would have been difficult and added challenges for the building occupants to install a different set of sensors (i.e., outdoor air quality, doors, windows, and movement sensors).Hence, outdoor parameters were collected from the 'Hospital General de México (HGM)' station (<1 km from the homes) of Mexico City's official local atmospheric monitoring program (http://aire.cdmx.gob.mx/ (accessed on 16 August 2021), see location in Figure 1).

Occupant perceptions of IAQ were collected through a certified indoor environmental survey [56], which was adapted to an online format. Building occupants were asked to complete the surveys after the end of the monitoring phase, considering their experiences throughout the previous year. This survey examined their perception of air freshness, moisture, movement, the outdoors, and their overall satisfaction with the air quality. The survey was based on seven-option rating scales, was unipolar and bipolar, and assessed following the survey guidelines (see [56] for detailed instructions). As this was a long-term study, it was also not viable to ask the participants to keep a detailed diary of their activities, therefore, participants were asked to provide the general weekly occupancy pattern of the dwelling and window opening patterns on which the analysis is based.

**Figure 1.** Location of the homes in Mexico City. The red highlighted area shows the Roma Norte. The navy dot represents the location of the monitoring station. The yellow circle highlights the area of the city centre. The blue arrows the main wind direction. Source: Authors, based on Google map image.

#### *2.1. Indoor Air Quality Criteria*

Standard protocols for measuring the IAQ in homes are limited. Usually, such protocols are designed for general IAQ monitoring (i.e., CIBSEKS17, ASTM D6245-12, and the BS EN ISO 16000-1:2006) and are adapted for residential studies. In this study, we followed the recommendations from BS EN ISO 16000-1:2006 and used the following thresholds:


#### *2.2. Household Characteristics*

The dwellings are located within the Roma Norte neighbourhood in the west of Mexico City's historic centre, within less than 500 m of each other (Figure 1). The Roma Norte encompasses diverse building uses residential, restaurants, bars, clubs, shops, churches, and galleries. The borders of the neighbourhood are three principal avenues, which have dense and constant traffic, this is in combination with the winds in the city, which bring the surrounding pollution of the industrial zones to the central neighbourhoods.

Both dwellings have the same orientation, north to south, facing the predominant winds (north-west). While the homes are different in size and floor plan layout (Figure 2a,b), it was deemed adequate to compare them, as the standard home represents the most common typology [59]. Both dwellings have similar occupancy and multipurpose rooms (kitchen, living room, and dining area). Two adults and one child occupied each of the dwellings. Table 1 describes the frequency of window opening and the occupancy patterns, as depicted in the occupancy diaries. Table 2 shows a summary of the building characteristics and construction details.

**Figure 2.** (**a**) Passivhaus dwelling floor plan. The red dots indicate the placement of the sensors. The blue arrows indicate the ventilation flow. The green and red arrows represent the inlet openings and extraction fan, respectively. Source: authors. (**b**) Standard dwelling floor plan. Source: Authors.


**Table 1.** Household characteristics. Source: Authors.

**Table 2.** Main building characteristics of the Passivhaus and Standard Dwellings. Source: Authors.


In warmer climates, the Passivhaus ventilation strategy may differ from the one recommended in European countries. Rather than using mechanical ventilation with a heat recovery (MVHR) system, the ventilation can rely on mechanical and natural ventilation (hybrid). This Passivhaus dwelling used mechanical extraction ventilation, in the toilet, and three openings with a total of 0.05 m2, in the living room, at the other end of the house (see green and red arrows in Figure 2a). These inlet openings were initially fitted with an F7 filter–for fine dust and PM1–10. As the filters were difficult to find on the Mexican market at the time, they were removed as they could not be periodically changed. Therefore, during this study, no filters were present. Before the monitoring phase, the ventilation system was recommissioned to ensure that the air flows were as stated in the PHPP (42 m3/h).

#### **3. Results**

#### *3.1. Passivhaus Ventilation*

A Passivhaus design for hybrid ventilation must ensure that the required ventilation is still met in the most unfavourable conditions, when windows are closed, and natural ventilation is restricted. Therefore, the Passivhaus still needs to provide the ventilation required by the Passivhaus calculation through mechanical means. The air flows in the house were tested and adapted accordingly to the PHPP calculation (42 m3/h). The extraction fan claimed to have a capacity of 95 m3/h. However, this was reduced to 74.30 m3/h after being installed. Nonetheless, this was still higher than the 42 m3/h required by the PHPP. The difference was compensated using a timer that regulated the fan operation at 34 min per hour and allowed manual activation/deactivation.

The CO2 levels were used as a ventilation metric [60] (CO2 levels are examined in detail in the next section). The CO2 concentrations in the room were modelled using Equation (1).

$$\mathcal{L} = (\boldsymbol{q} \div \boldsymbol{n} \boldsymbol{V}) \left[ 1 - \left( \boldsymbol{e}^{\mathrm{nt}} \right) \right] + (\boldsymbol{c}\_0 - \boldsymbol{c}\_i) \left( 1 \div \boldsymbol{e}^{\mathrm{nt}} \right) + \boldsymbol{c}\_i \tag{1}$$

Equation (1). Model for CO2 Concentrations in Rooms with People. Source: [61]. where

*c* = carbon dioxide concentration in the room (m3/m3)

*q* = carbon dioxide supplied to the room (m3/h)

*V* = volume of the room (m3)

*e* = the constant 2.718

*n* = air changes per hour (1/h)

*t* = time (hour, h)

*ci* = carbon dioxide concentration in the inlet ventilation air (m3/m3)

*c0* = carbon dioxide concentration in the room at start, t = 0 (m3/m3)

Figure 3 shows the measured CO2 levels (continuous blue line) on 26 March 2017. The calibration model (orange short dashed line) was produced using the real occupancy and ventilation patterns (Density: two persons; activity: sleeping; time interval: 5 min; CO2 emissions per person: 0.015 m3/h; ventilation rates (calibration model): each hour from 0:00–0:15 at 0.001 ach, 0:15–0:30 at 0.9789 ach (74.3 m3/h), 0:30–0:40 at 0.001 ach, and 0:45–1:00 at 0.9789 ach (74.3 m3/h); room volume: 75.9 m3; and outdoor CO2: 500 ppm) assuming an outdoor level of 500 ppm, as recommended on the EN 13779:2007 [62]. Another model (blue dash-dot-dash line) evaluated the same condition but changed the extraction to a continuous rate of 42 m3/h, as suggested by the PHPP calculations (Density: two persons; activity: sleeping; time interval: 5 min; CO2 emissions per person: 0.015 m3/h; ventilation rates (continuous flow): 42 m3/h; room volume: 75.9 m3; and ambient CO2: 500 ppm). Finally, the last model (Density: two persons; activity: sleeping; time interval: 5 min; CO2 emissions per person: 0.015 m3/h; ventilation rates (continuous flow): 74.3 m3/h; room volume: 75.9 m3; and ambient CO2: 500 ppm) (red long dashed line) evaluated with the total capacity of the installed fan (74.3 m3/h). The effect can be observed in Figure 4.

**Figure 3.** Measured and modelled overnight CO2 levels. Source: Authors.

**Figure 4.** Monitored CO2 levels in Mexico's Passivhaus (21–22 March 2017). Source: Authors.

#### *3.2. Carbon Dioxide Levels*

The CO2 levels in both monitored spaces, the living room and bedroom, exceeded the recommended 1000 ppm throughout the year. The results showed that the highest levels peaks were during the colder months, when one would expect the windows to remain closed. Nonetheless, the monthly mean levels in both spaces remained below the recommended levels (Figure 5). The overall CO2 levels in the Passivhaus were better compared to those in the standard dwelling. They remained below the recommended 1000 ppm for 85.9% of the year in the bedroom and 90.1% in the living room in the Passivhaus. In

contrast, the standard dwelling bedroom CO2 levels were above 1000 ppm for 42.9% of the time and 97.5% in the living room. The CO2 levels of the bedroom of the standard home were of particular concern, particularly at night. A potential explanation could be the differences in the ventilation regulation in the Mexican building regulations, and the fact that windows remained closed during the night due to security concerns. Monthly CO2 levels and a statistical analysis can be found in the Supplementary Table S1.

**Figure 5.** Bedroom annual CO2 levels in the Passivhaus and Standard dwellings. Source: Authors.

#### *3.3. Particulate Matter 2.5 μm*

The recommended PM2.5 thresholds of 10 μg/m3 and 25 μg/m3 were exceeded outdoors and in both dwellings (Figure 6). The measured PM2.5 levels outdoors and in both dwellings are shown in Table 3. In comparison, previous studies found that the mean indoor PM2.5 concentrations ranged between 28.9 μg/m3 [63] and 35.1 μg/m3 [64]. These levels were significantly higher than those in the Passivhaus dwelling.

The PM2.5 levels in the Passivhaus (*rs* = 0.539–0.587, *(p* < 0.001)) and the standard (*rs* = 0.539–0.611, (*p* < 0.001)) dwellings were statistically similar to that outdoors, which is similar to another study where this relationship was significant at *rs* = 056, (*p* < 0.001) [65] (see Section 3.3.1.). Nonetheless, further examination revealed that indoor PM2.5 levels were also affected by indoor behaviours and ventilation strategies. For instance, cooking originated significant pollution peaks, rapidly dissipated in the standard home (Figure S1) due to higher ventilation rates, compared to the Passivhaus dwelling (Figure S2), where the pollution peaks took longer to dissipate. However, once the pollution peaks dissipated, indoor PM2.5 levels remained lower in the Passivhaus dwelling than in the standard home. Monthly PM2.5 levels and a statistical analysis can be found in Supplementary Table S2.

**Figure 6.** Annual PM2.5 profile in the Passivhaus and standard dwellings. Source: Authors.


**Table 3.** Annual PM2.5 means compared to the recommended thresholds. Source: Authors.

#### 3.3.1. Indoor-Outdoor PM2.5 Levels

A previous study that looked at indoor and outdoor PM2.5 concentrations in Mexico City found that they were statically similar at *rs* = 0.56 *(p* < 0.001), regardless of the season [64]. In this study, we found similar relationships in both dwellings. The Passivhaus indoor–outdoor correlation was significant at *rs* = 0.539–0.587 *(p* < 0.001) and in the standard home at *rs* = 0.539–0.611 *(p* < 0.001). Although indoor–outdoor PM2.5 levels were significantly correlated, there were some differences between the indoor–outdoor levels measured.

PM2.5 levels in the Passivhaus dwelling were between 5.22 μg/m3 to 6.54 μg/m3 below outdoor levels and those in the standard home were between 3.65 μg/m3 and 7.04 μg/m3 above those outdoors as shown in Table 4. Hence, the results in this study suggest that these differences could be related to building related issues or differences in the building occupants' behaviour. Outdoor PM2.5 levels are described in Table S2.

Occupant behaviour, particularly cooking, window opening, and the use of sprays, have an important role in the PM2.5 profiles in homes. Therefore, the impact of cooking and window opening on PM2.5 was analysed in both homes. For instance, cooking fumes produced higher peak levels of PM2.5 as pollution continued to accumulated (being slowly dissipated/driven outdoors). PM2.5 levels were observed to rise in the kitchen during

cooking. However, the particles travelled to the adjacent rooms, where PM2.5 levels started rising minutes after (Figures S1 and S2).


**Table 4.** Monthly indoor–outdoor differences of the PM2.5 levels. Source: Authors.

#### *3.4. Total Volatile Organic Compounds*

As part of the study, indoor tVOC levels were measured. However, it was not possible to collect outdoor measurements, as they were not measured by the local air pollution network and the specifications of the low-cost monitors. A 7-month study found that outdoor tVOC levels in Mexico City were 1462 <sup>μ</sup>g/m<sup>3</sup> (±<sup>763</sup> <sup>μ</sup>g/m3) in residential neighbourhoods but could peak at up to 5364 μg/m3 [66]. Mean indoor tVOC levels ranged between 569 μg/m3 to 578 μg/m<sup>3</sup> in the Passivhaus, while in the standard home they were 587 μg/m3 to 786 μg/m3, as illustrated in Figure 7. Peak pollution levels were commonly observed when the occupants reported using personal cleaning products, cooking, and cleaning activities. These activities impacted the most in the early mornings, when windows usually remained closed and the ventilation rates were lower, as evidenced by the CO2 levels. The effect of the lack of ventilation had a significant impact on the dissipating of indoor tVOC concentrations. Finally, tVOC concentrations were not directly associated with building or furnishing materials. During non-occupied periods, the levels remained relatively low (<300 μg/m3). This could be because both dwellings are more than five years, and tVOC off-gassing is usually higher in new (<2 years) materials [67]. Monthly tVOC levels and statistical analyses can be found in Supplementary Table S3.

**Figure 7.** Annual tVOC profile in the Passivhaus and Standard dwellings. Source: Authors.

#### *3.5. Indoor Air Quality Perception*

Table 5 shows a summary of the occupants' summer IAQ perceptions. The surveys suggest that the Passivhaus fresh–stuffy scale (M = 4.67) for the summer months was rated

poorly. It showed that while occupants were satisfied overall with the IAQ conditions, they did not perceive the freshness of the air as an important factor. The survey analysis suggests that occupants from the standard home had a constant dissatisfaction (M = 4.00) with the IAQ in their home, as participants perceived the air to be stale (M = 4.67), draughty (M = 5.67), and smelly (M = 5.33).


**Table 5.** Statistical analysis of the IAQ perceptions during summer for both homes. Source: Authors.

The analysis of the winter IAQ perception surveys suggests that Passivhaus occupants rated the air as stale (M = 3.33). However, they stated being (M = 1.3) satisfied overall with the IAQ. Occupants of the standard home stated the air was stale (M = 4.67), draughty (M = 2.33), and smelly (M = 5.00), rating all these scales poorly. This may have led the occupants to rate very poorly the overall IAQ perception (M = 5.33), as shown in Table 6.

Passivhaus occupants reported that they did not experience condensation on windows or doors. However, they had experienced odours coming from outdoors; this may be related to the lack of filters in the inlet. Nonetheless, participants rated the odour scale on the odourless side, suggesting that the odours were not uncomfortable. Occupants of the standard home reported condensation on windows and the presence of mould in the bathroom. They also perceived smells coming from the kitchen, toilets, laundry closet, and outdoors. A possible explanation for the indoor odours could be that the windows remain closed for prolonged periods, causing the air to be stale and stuffy, as stated in the survey scale ratings.


**Table 6.** Statistical analysis of the IAQ perceptions during winter for both homes. Source: Authors.

#### **4. Discussion**

This work presents long-term indoor air quality measurements conducted alongside airflow testing of the first residential Passivhaus building in Latin America. The results suggest that, in big cities in Latin America, dwellings built to the Passivhaus standard have the potential to achieve better IAQ compared to standard dwellings. This is of particular interest, as outdoor pollution in these cities usually exceeds the recommended levels of exposure [68]. Through this study, several lessons were learned that could help to develop further the Passivhaus standard in warm/temperate climates, such as the one in Mexico City.

The approach to the ventilation system may be the most important of these lessons. While the Passive House Institute would still recommend a MVHR in these climates, this study shows that hybrid ventilation may still be a viable option. However, the mechanical component of the ventilation method still needs to provide minimum airflow rates. It is recommended to use adequate filters, to ensure the best IAQ performance. It is also recommended to provide continuous, rather than intermittent, ventilation.

The levels of indoor air pollutants at the Passivhaus dwelling were lower than those in the standard home. However, pollution peaks took longer to dissipate in the Passivhaus home. This could have been related to the fact that the standard home relied on natural ventilation. Higher airflows helped to dissipate the air pollutants. Another potential

explanation is related to the fact that the mechanical ventilation was not continuous (34 min on–26 min off). If a pollution event occurred during or close to when the fan was off, indoor air pollutants were not removed through ventilation. Similarly, indoor air pollutants, particularly tVOCs (Figure S3), in the standard home were higher during the night, when the windows were closed.

The PM2.5 and tVOC decay rates were lower in the Passivhaus dwelling compared to the standard dwelling, particularly those related to fine particles after cooking. The PM2.5 pollution decay in the Passivhaus (1.1 h<sup>−</sup>1) was longer compared to the conventional home (0.24 h−1) [69]. Similar to this study, a spike of PM2.5 was measured immediately after cooking events, but levels dropped quickly and then the peak concentrations began to decay gradually. In this study, a higher stability of PM2.5 levels across the different rooms was noted in the Passivhaus homes. This indicates the likely transport of particles from the source room to others, assisted by longer decay rates and doors opening/closing between spaces, facilitating further distribution of PM2.5.

Filters with F7 or higher levels of filtration are designed to filter PM2.5 and are recommended for Passivhaus. However, their use could lead to higher fan demands, noise, filter costs, maintenance, and even energy penalties. Ventilation rates and particle sedimentation primarily influence PM2.5 decay rate, whereas tVOC may also depend on operative room temperature and relative humidity. However, proper ventilation remains the best way to control indoor pollution. In this study, it was observed that window opening behaviour was the most effective technique to control indoor pollution.

Further works should test at larger scale the indoor air quality alongside thermal comfort and energy performance in other Passivhaus dwellings in Latin America. Such a study could support the positive impact on the Sustainable Development Goals 03 (health and wellbeing), 07 (affordable and clean energy), and 09 (industry, innovation, and infrastructure) for Latin American countries.

This study suffered from some apparent limitations. First of all, this work presents the monitoring results of two homes that are different in typology. As the standard dwelling was a typical representation of the housing typologies in Mexico City, it was deemed appropriate for comparison. In addition, it was not possible to find another dwelling of a similar layout within an appropriate radius from the Passivhaus, so that the outdoor air pollution was similar between both dwellings. In addition, at the time of this research, there was no other Passivhaus dwellings in Latin America to conduct the study. Second, the use of low-cost monitors could represent a compromise in accuracy. In order to overcome this barrier, we installed three different monitors in each room, developed calibration equations, and tested the accuracy of the monitors in real-life settings, as suggested by [53,55]. Third, the long-term (one year) coverage of this study made it difficult and too onerous for the participants to keep detailed activity and occupancy diaries. Therefore, the analysis was based on a general pattern. We also considered using other low-cost sensors to monitor the door/window use, but this was not economically feasible at the time of this study. Having data on the window opening could have allowed a better data analysis, but this was not feasible in this study. Finally, difference in the monitoring technologies between the indoor and outdoor air pollution sensors could represent minimal discrepancies between the readings.

#### **5. Conclusions**

This work presented the IAQ monitoring of the first Passivhaus residential dwelling in Latin America. The measurements demonstrate that the Passivhaus CO2 and tVOC annual average levels were 143.8 ppm and 81.47 μg/m3 lower than the standard home. PM2.5 levels in the Passivhaus were 11.13 μg/m<sup>3</sup> lower than the standard home and 5.75 μg/m<sup>3</sup> lower than those outdoors. While these results give insights into the trends and relative levels air pollution, some lessons were also learned for the development of the Passivhaus in Latin America. It is possible to use a hybrid ventilation strategy to provide adequate ventilation in Passivhaus dwellings. While the use of MVHR units could be dependent on outdoor weather conditions, it is still preferable to use them, particularly in cities with high outdoor pollution. The ventilation strategy, independent of the use of the MVHR unit, needs to run continuously to provide adequate airflow levels and, hence, adequate indoor air pollution removal.

While the results presented here cannot be generalised, the results suggest that Passivhaus dwellings have the potential to provide better and healthier indoor air quality in Latin America. Further large-scale studies should consider the indoor environmental conditions, energy performance, and dwelling design of Passivhaus dwellings in Latin America.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/ 10.3390/atmos12111477/s1, Table S1. Summary of CO2 levels in both homes; Figure S1. Standard home PM2.5 profile 29–30 June 2016; Figure S2. Passivhaus home PM2.5 profile 20–21 December 2016, Table S2. Summary of PM2.5 levels in both homes; Table S3. Summary of tVOC levels in both homes; Figure S3. Hourly tVOC levels in the Passivhaus and Standard dwelling's bedrooms.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualisation: T.S., F.M., G.M., A.M.-R.; Methodology: T.S., F.M., G.M., A.M.-R.; Formal analysis: A.M.-R.; Investigation: A.M.-R.; Data Curation: A.M.-R.; Writing—Original Draft: A.M.-R.; Writing—Review & Editing: T.S., F.M., G.M.; Visualisation: A.M.-R.; Supervision: T.S., F.M., G.M.; Project administration: T.S., F.M., G.M., A.M.-R.; Funding acquisition: A.M.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** CONACyT partially funded this research through a PhD grant. AirBoxLab (Foobot) partially funded this study, offering a discount on the monitors used in this research. The development of this article was supported by the Research England Expanding, Excellence in England (E3).

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Ethical approval was sought and granted by the Glasgow School of Art Ethics Sub-committee; for further details, please refer to: https://www.gsa.ac.uk/ media/497492/gsa\_research\_ethics\_policy.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2019).

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data for this study were part of a PhD published in 2019 [55] with an embargo until March 2024. Data could be made available upon request from the corresponding author.

**Acknowledgments:** This work would not have been possible without the support of INHAB and the participation of the building occupants, to which we are thankful. Thanks are given to Adam Hotson, who offered useful editing and proofreading of an earlier version of this paper. The work published here was undertaken at the Mackintosh Environmental Research Unit.

**Conflicts of Interest:** None of the authors of this paper has a financial or personal relationship with other people or organisations that could inappropriately influence or bias the content of this article. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**

