3). More measurements were available but excluded because of missing personal characteristics (n=44, and 31 respectively).Forimpedanceanadditional30subjectswereexcluded due to technical problems (17), non-compliance (four), and insufficient repeats (nine). The FEV1 and FVC were normal compared with Indonesian reference values (appendix) but MEF and PEF (77%) were low. No difference in flow-volume variables was found between the exposure categories and if trends were visible they typically showed better lung function at increasing current exposure. Similar findings were noted for impedance variables, but here differences did reach significance for f0 and reactance (table 4).As an alternative to current exposure, years of employment was used as a rough estimateofcumulativeexposuretowooddustandwasfurther explored by multiple linear regression analysis relating lung function and personal characteristics.The outcomes showed a negative association between years of employment and spirometric indices but only in male workers. Statistical significance for years of employment was obtained for FVC, FEV1, FEV1/FVC, and MEF (table 4), with the highest adjusted variance obtained for FVC and FEV1. On the other hand, impedance variables that were significantly different between current exposure classes lost significance in the multiple logistic regression with years of employment.Finally,a multiple linear regression with cumulative exposure as an index integrating years of employment and current exposure category, could not show an association with lung function