AOAC SPSFAM PAC ERP

I. Summary of the Method

The method described is applicable for the detection and quantitation of proanthocyanidin (PAC) content in cranberry products. The 4-(dimethylamino)cinnamaldehyde (DMAC) assay is currently used to quantify proanthocyanidin (PAC) content in cranberry products. However, this method suffers from issues of accuracy and precision in the analysis and comparison of PAC levels across a broad range of cranberry products. In a multi-operator/multi-day study design, a cranberry proanthocyanidin (c-PAC) standard was compared to procyanidin A2 (ProA2) dimer for accurate quantification of PAC in commercial cranberry juices, lab generated cranberry blends and cranberry powders. The c-PAC standard reflects the structural heterogeneity of cranberry PAC degree of polymerization, hydroxylation pattern and ratios of ‘A-type’ to ‘B-type’ interflavanyl bonds. Use of the c-PAC standard to quantify PAC content in cranberry samples resulted in values that were higher than those determined by procyanidin A2 (ProA2), which were inaccurate. YES: The applicability of the method is partially adequate to the applicability of the SMPR. My remarks are follows - Authors should add: - Values of recoveries for analytes (and SD or RSD); according with: 'Determined from spiked blanks or samples with at least seven independent analyses per concentration level at a minimum of three concentration levels covering the analytical range. Independent means at least at different times. If no confirmed (natural) blank is available, the average inherent (naturally containing) level of the analyte should be determined on at least seven independent replicates.' - Values of LOD and LOQ for all analytes.

II. Review of the Method Only:

II. Review of the Method Only 1. Does the applicability of the method support the applicability of the SMPR? If not, please explain what is missing.

2. Does the analytical technique(s) used in the method meet the SMPR? If not, please specify how it differs from what is stated in the SMPR. 3. Are the definitions specified in the SMPR used and applied appropriately in the method? If no, please indicate how the terms are used. 4. Does the method, as written, contain all appropriate precautions and warnings related to the method's reagents, components, instrumentation, or method steps that may be hazardous? If no, please suggest wording or option(s).

YES: The analytical techniques in the method are adequate and meet the SMPR.

YES: Definitions, which are specified in the SMPR, were used and applied appropriately in the method.

Yes: The method contains all appropriate precautions and warnings related to the method’s reagents, components, instrumentation, or method steps that may be hazardous.