• Jose Guillermo Cedeño Laurent, Augusta Williams, Youssef Oulhote, Antonella Zanobetti, Joseph G Allen, and John D Spengler.
• Exposure, Epidemiology, and Risk Program, Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
• PLoS Med. 2018 Jul 1; 15 (7): e1002605e1002605.

BackgroundIn many regions globally, buildings designed for harnessing heat during the cold exacerbate thermal exposures during heat waves (HWs) by maintaining elevated indoor temperatures even when high ambient temperatures have subdued. While previous experimental studies have documented the effects of ambient temperatures on cognitive function, few have observed HW effects on indoor temperatures following subjects' habitual conditions. The objective was to evaluate the differential impact of having air conditioning (AC) on cognitive function during a HW among residents of AC and non-AC buildings using a prospective observational cohort study.MethodsWe followed 44 students (mean age = 20.2 years; SD = 1.8 years) from a university in the Greater Boston area, Massachusetts in the United States living in AC (n = 24) and non-AC (n = 20) buildings before, during, and after a HW. Two cognition tests were self-administered daily for a period of 12 days (July 9-July 20, 2016), the Stroop color-word test (STROOP) to assess selective attention/processing speed and a 2-digit, visual addition/subtraction test (ADD) to evaluate cognitive speed and working memory. The effect of the HW on cognitive function was evaluated using difference-in-differences (DiD) modelling.FindingsMean indoor temperatures in the non-AC group (mean = 26.3°C; SD = 2.5°C; range = 19.6-30.4°C) were significantly higher (p < 0.001) than in the AC group (mean = 21.4°C; SD = 1.9°C; range = 17.5-25.0°C). DiD estimates show an increase in reaction time (STROOP = 13.4%, p < 0001; ADD = 13.3%, p < 0.001) and reduction in throughput (STROOP = -9.9%, p < 0.001; ADD = -6.3%, p = 0.08) during HWs among non-AC residents relative to AC residents at baseline. While ADD showed a linear relationship with indoor temperatures, STROOP was described by a U-shaped curve with linear effects below and above an optimum range (indoor temperature = 22°C-23°C), with an increase in reaction time of 16 ms/°C and 24 ms/°C for STROOP and ADD, respectively. Cognitive tests occurred right after waking, so the study is limited in that it cannot assess whether the observed effects extended during the rest of the day. Although the range of students' ages also represents a limitation of the study, the consistent findings in this young, healthy population might indicate that greater portions of the population are susceptible to the effects of extreme heat.ConclusionsCognitive function deficits resulting from indoor thermal conditions during HWs extend beyond vulnerable populations. Our findings highlight the importance of incorporating sustainable adaptation measures in buildings to preserve educational attainment, economic productivity, and safety in light of a changing climate.

29 keywords...

hide…