AOAC SPSFAM PAC ERP

4. Based on the supporting information, is the method written clearly and concisely? If no, please specify the needed revisions. 5. Based on the supporting information, what are the pros/strengths of the method?

As indicated by the authors, the proposed method refers to two previously published publications (Feliciano et al., 2012 & Krueger et al., 2016). I think that the proposed method need to be reformatted from existing publications and supplemental information into a single document. This will enhance the quality of the method and makes easier its reading and understanding.

1- Well known colorimetric assay 2- Procedure well described 3- Relatively simple method 4- Easy to conduct

6. Based on the supporting information, what are the cons/weaknesses of the method?

1- There are data for only powder and juices. Not all dietary ingredients indicated in the SMPR 2- No recovery data are given. 3- No LOQ and LOD data for cranberry proanthocyanidin standard 4- Need to be reformatted in a new complete form 5- The phytochemical composition of the cranberry proanthocyanidin standard is not well known

7. Any general comments about the method?

A simple and promising method but may need more data

Recommendation for the Method

V. Final Recommendation Do you recommend this method be adopted as a First Action and published in the Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC INTERNATIONAL? Please specify rationale.

I think that the proposed method could be a promising candidate for the quantification of cranberry proanthocyanidins and then would support this method for First Action status, but would recommend additional work, more supporting data and investigation of the remaining points listed in SMPR (LOQ and LOD of c-PAC standard, use of other cranberry dietary ingredients, recovery data, blanck check sample, ...). I also think that the proposed method should be rewritten and proposed in a more complete form making it easy to read and understand.