The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Multi‐laboratory validation of a standard method for quantifying proanthocyanidins in cranberry powders
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to validate an improved 4‐dimethylaminocinnamaldehyde (DMAC) colorimetric method using a commercially available standard (procyanidin A2), for the standard method for quantification of proanthocyanidins (PACs) in cranberry powders, in order to establish dosage guidelines for the uropathogenic bacterial anti‐adhesion effect of cranberry. RESULTS: Commercially available cranberry samples were obtained (five from U.S. sources and six from European sources) for PAC quantification in five different analytical laboratories. Each laboratory extracted and analyzed the samples using the improved DMAC method. Within‐laboratory variation (mean ± SD) was 4.1 ± 1.7% RSD (range, 2.3–6.1% RSD) and the between laboratory variability was 16.9 ± 8.5% RSD (range, 8–32% RSD). For comparative purposes, the cranberry samples were alternatively quantified using weights of extracted PACs (gravimetric). The correlation coefficient between the two methods was 0.989. CONCLUSION: This improved DMAC method provides a simple, robust and relatively specific spectrophotometric assay for total PACs in cranberry samples using commercially available procyanidin A2 dimer as a standard. DMAC is most useful within a given type of food such as cranberries, but may not be appropriate for comparing concentrations across different food types, particularly in those cases where large differences exist among the relative amounts of each oligomer and polymer. Copyright © 2010 Society of Chemical Industry
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Beachey, E. H. (1981) · Journal of Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/infdis/143.3.325 · Cited by 1,411
Hammerstone, J. F., Lazarus, S. A., Mitchell, A. E., Rucker, R., & Schmitz, H. H. (1999) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jf980760h · Cited by 455
Cranberries for preventing urinary tract infections
Jepson, R. G., & Craig, J. C. (2008) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001321.pub4 · Cited by 248
Cited by
Cranberries for preventing urinary tract infections
Jepson, R., Mihaljevic, L., & Craig, J. (2004) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001321.pub3 · Cited by 623
Roopchand, D. E., Krueger, C. G., Moskal, K., Fridlender, B., Lila, M. A., & Raskin, I. (2013) · Food Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.06.050 · Cited by 73
Metadata
- Authors
- Prior, R. L., Fan, E., Ji, H., Howell, A., Nio, C., Payne, M. J., & Reed, J.
- Venue
- Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-06-07
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1473-1478
- ISSN
- 0022-5142 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0010
- OpenAlex
- W2017188714
- Cited by
- 359
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 10.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Multi‐laboratory validation of a standard method for quantifying proanthocyanidins in cranberry powders. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jsfa.3966
- The paper
- Prior, R. L., Fan, E., Ji, H., Howell, A., Nio, C., Payne, M. J., & Reed, J. (2010). Multi‐laboratory validation of a standard method for quantifying proanthocyanidins in cranberry powders. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.3966
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.