## 3 Results  
Table 1 shows the results of the relaxation times T1 and T2 for the different edible oils analyzed using both MRI and TD-NMR. Additionally, the table includes the IV calculated for each of the oils studied. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**T1 (ms)**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**T2 (ms)**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**IV ***} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Edible Oils**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MRI**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**TD-NMR**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MRI**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**TD-NMR**} & \\ \cline{2-9}  & \(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}\) & \(\mathbf{\sigma^{2}}\) & \(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}\) & \(\mathbf{\sigma^{2}}\) & \(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}\) & \(\mathbf{\sigma^{2}}\) & \(\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}\) & \(\mathbf{\sigma^{2}}\) \\ \hline Sunflower & 218.40 b & 24.28 & 163.33 c & 2.33 & 130.50 b & 7.93 & 115.37 c & 0.16 & 132.27 c & 0.47 \\ Soy & 222.67 b & 31.24 & 170.01 b & 0.01 & 131.57 b & 2.52 & 118.00 b & 0.01 & 141.64 b & 1.05 \\ Sesame & 211.27 b & 84.54 & 153.33 d & 0.33 & 123.07 c & 1.84 & 108.56 d & 0.16 & 119.38 d & 1.29 \\ Olive & 193.77 c & 11.26 & 144.33 e & 2.33 & 111.33 d & 1.02 & 103.23 e & 0.06 & 91.24 e & 0.36 \\ Linseed & 273.57 a & 126.29 & 189.67 a & 4.33 & 142.87 a & 7.26 & 136.30 a & 0.01 & 199.32 a & 0.53 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
* According to [PERSON] et al. (20). Different letters (a, b, c, d, and e) within the same column indicate significant differences (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Longitudinal (T1) and transversal (T2) relaxation times (ms) measured by MRI and TD-NMR for different edible oils (sunflower, soy, sesame, olive, and linseed), along with their respective iodine values (IV) obtained by NMR. The longitudinal relaxation times (T1) obtained by MRI were noticeably higher (\(\sim\)26%) than those obtained by TD-NMR. During MRI, a 1 T magnet was used, whereas for the TD-NMR study, a 0.146 T magnet was employed. In fact, the differences between the T2 values obtained from MRI and TD-NMR were lower than 10%. Additionally, as shown by the values in Table 1, for the same magnetic field strength, the T1 values were consistently higher than the T2 values (37% of the overall difference). Figure 1A shows the relaxation curves for the T1 (signal intensity vs. TR) and T2 (signal intensity vs. TE) values of the studied oils. For a better visualization of the relaxation profiles, only the curves corresponding to olive oil and linseed oil, which represent the extreme values within the range of analyzed edible oils (Table 1), are presented. These curves were used to determine the T1 and T2 relaxation times in milliseconds (ms). Acquiring these T1 and T2 results on the MRI system requires approximately 15-20 min. During this time, the relaxation times for 21 samples were acquired. Figure 1B presents regression models between T1 and T2 relaxation times obtained via MRI and the IV (NMR). As shown, the regression models between relaxation times and IV resulted in being linear across the range of oils studied, with an R\({}^{2}\) of 0.99 for T1 and 0.92 for T2 (\(p<0.05\)) (Table S1). The equation of the regression models with the mean and standard deviation for each variable coefficient is also shown. The variation coefficient of the MRI measurements, calculated as the percentage of the standard deviation relative to the mean of the three measurements, shows a relaxation time variation of only 0.65%. Figure 1: Results obtained from the MRI study: (**A**) longitudinal relaxation curves (top) and transverse relaxation curves (bottom) of the two types of oils analyzed (linseed and olive). (**B**) Linear regression models (dash line) obtained from MRI analysis. Top: the regression model between the relaxation time T1 (ms) and the iodine value (IV) obtained by NMR spectroscopy. Bottom: the regression model between the relaxation time T2 (ms) and the iodine value (IV) obtained by NMR spectroscopy. The signal intensity was shown in arbitrary units. The mean and standard deviation (SD) of IV, T1, and T2 were considered.