This morning we conducted further inspections on the cargo on board and found the following1 We visually inspected the cargo from the hatch coaming and found that the discolored layers in hold 4

This morning, we conducted further inspections on the cargo on board and made the following observations:

1. We visually inspected the cargo from the hatch coaming and found that the discolored layers in hold 4 had been discharged. The bottom cargoes appeared to be in acceptable condition, except for poor flowability. However, in cargo holds 2 and 5, the discolored layer near the top was still visible. Additionally, some areas of the cargo in cargo holds showed different colors due to the presence of a large amount of bean pods and fragments, dust, and poor flowability.

2. Subsequently, we conducted a close-up inspection of the cargo inside the cargo holds and found that some of the cargo contained a large amount of fragments, dust, or bean pods, causing localized areas to appear white, brown, or even black. We also noticed a small amount of black carbonized beans and some reddish-brown heat-damaged beans mixed in the normal cargo.

3. For the discolored layer cargo, we took some samples and found that the seed coat had turned brown and wrinkled, and the cotyledons were dark brown. Mold was visible on the surface of the broken kernels. This is a typical manifestation of heat-damaged soybeans. We did not find any normal soybeans in the cargo sample of discolored layer.

4. We measured the temperature of the cargo under the surface around one meter and found that the temperature was about 30 degrees Celsius while the ambient temperature was about 17.6 degrees Celsius.

5. We conducted a silver nitrate solution test on the cargo and hatch coaming and found no reaction, indicating that the cargo was not affected by seawater. We also inspected the hatch coaming and hatch cover and found no signs of leakage. The sealing rubber gasket of the hatch cover was in good condition.

6. We then proceeded to the warehouse to inspect the cargo. In warehouse 206, where the cargo owner claimed to have stored severely damaged cargo from hold 4, we found that the cargo contained a large amount of discolored and moldy cargo, and the temperature of the cargo was between 29-39 degrees Celsius. In warehouse 203, where the cargo owner claimed to have stored slightly damaged cargo, we found that the cargo contained a small amount of discolored and moldy cargo (including black carbonized beans), and the temperature of the cargo was about 30 degrees Celsius.

Currently, the cargo owner claims that all cargo on board has suffered damage, with the cargo in hold 4 being considered severely damaged and the remaining cargo being considered slightly damaged. SGS sampling is still ongoing. The cargo owner believes that the ship's ventilation may be poor, as they noticed obvious sweat marks on the surface of the cargo pile when the hatch was opened for discharging and provided some photos. Based on the photos provided, some cargo on the surface in the cargo hold appears to be moldy, with strip-shaped marks found on the surface of the cargo pile. According to our experience, this is usually caused by the humidity in the hold.

The crew is still preparing the relevant documents and has not yet provided us with the required documents. However, it should be noted that according to the crew's information, they only started ventilation after the vessel arrived in Singapore, which is relatively late and may not comply with the fumigation certificate requirements. In addition, the crew never measured the temperature of the cargo or the dew point inside the cargo hold, which means that the crew did not carry out appropriate ventilation in accordance with the usual requirements, such as the three-degree rule or the dew point rule.

From what we have seen, the main problems with the cargo are heat damage and mold. Soybean heat damage is usually caused by self-heating or external sources of heat. According to the general arrangement plan, there are no fuel tanks around cargo holds 2, 4, and 5, and no other sources of heat were found during the on-site inspection. Therefore, it is possible that the cargo suffered self-heating or heat damage before being loaded onto the vessel.

According to relevant studies, soybeans need to reach a temperature of over 55 degrees Celsius to undergo heat damage. However, the temperature of the cargo measured on-site was below 40 degrees Celsius. Additionally, we found black carbonized beans mixed in with the cargo, which require very high-temperature and airtight conditions to form. This means that it is impossible to have carbonized beans mixed in with good beans. Therefore, it can be concluded that the quality of the cargo was poor before being loaded onto the vessel, with some carbonized beans and even heat-damaged beans mixed in. Taking all of the above into consideration, we believe that the probability of the cargo suffering heat damage on the vessel is relatively small, and it is more likely that the heat damage occurred before the cargo was loaded onto the vessel. Of course, it cannot be ruled out that the cargo had already been cooled down by the time we measured it due to the low ambient temperature.

However, on the other hand, if the heat damage occurred during the voyage, whether the cargo would self-heat or not depends on the equilibrium relative humidity. Since we did not find any signs of water ingress on site, it means that the cargo itself had a high moisture content. Additionally, we found that the cargo damage occurred at least half a meter below the surface of the cargo pile, where the cargo was no longer directly affected by ventilation. This means that the high humidity air produced by the cargo could not be removed, and the heat generated by microbial growth could not be dissipated. Therefore, in this situation, no matter what measures the crew takes, the cargo will undergo heat damage due to its own high moisture content. In this sense, the heat damage is due to the natural properties of the cargo itself.

We have noticed the presence of surface mold and dampness on the goods, which is consistent with the shipper's claim of surface mold. Typically, the condition of the surface of goods is influenced by ventilation, and good ventilation can generally ensure that the surface of goods is not affected by heat damage or mold. According to information provided by the crew, they did not carry out proper ventilation. Therefore, the cause of the surface damage to the goods should be attributed to the lack of proper ventilation