SIR: In a recent publication of Environmental Science and Technology, Cai and co-workers (1) suggested that a former 2,4,5-T manufacturing facility in the lower Passaic River could be the sole source of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-pdioxin (TCDD) and other polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs) in blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) samples from the Newark Bay Estuary. The authors' conclusion was based on the reported presence of TCDD in crabs collected in 1991 and 1992 from a single location in Newark Bay, approximately 4 mi from the former 2,4,5-T site, and from three additional sites located in Raritan Bay, at distances of approximately 20-35 mi from the former 2,4,5-T site. In addition, the authors cite as a further basis for their conclusions the results of five dated sediment samples (2, 3) and two blue crab samples (4, 5) previously collected from Newark Bay and the lower Passaic River. These samples were also reported to contain TCDD and other PCDD/Fs. In a companion paper, Cai et al. ( 6) suggested that since crab tissue levels of 2,4,6,8-tetrachlorodibenzothiophene (2,4,6,8-TCDT) "correlated well" with TCDD levels measured in crabs collected from four locations in the estuary, a "common source" is likely responsible for the 2,4,6,8-TCDT and TCDD.Given the significant ramifications associated with such claims, we find it surprising that Cai et al. (1,6) would draw such sweeping conclusions based on such limited data. We are more concerned with the fact that Cai et al. (1,6) did not cite the numerous papers in the peer-reviewed literature that directly conflict with their claims. First, the authors have ignored a number of comprehensive sediment and contaminant source investigations (7-12) that have revealed the presence of multiple sources of PCDD/Fs to the Newark Bay Estuary. Several of these sources have distinct PCDD/F fingerprints, particularly with respect to their relative concentrations of 2,3,7,8-substituted congeners, that are attributable to specific municipal and industrial sources (i.e., pulp and paper mills, municipal solid waste incinerators, combined sewer overflows, manufacturing of polychlorinated biphenyls, etc.) (8). Many of these source fingerprints are evident in sediments from several locations throughout the Estuary (7, 12). In addition, many of these fingerprints contain TCDD. The presence of multiple sources in the estuary was recently confirmed by Ehrlich et al. ( 13), who identified five source fingerprints. Second, Cai et al. (1) failed to cite the numerous EPA studies that report the presence of TCDD sources at sites very near those same sampling locations. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Bioaccumulation Study found that elevated levels of PCDD/Fs in aquatic organisms collected from Raritan Bay are related to at least two sources in the Bay, including a pulp and paper mill and a petroleum refinery (14). In the same report, the EPA identified a chemical manufacturing facility along the Arthur Kill as a source of TCDD. A...