大豆货物检验报告：热损与霉变分析及原因探究

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

We visually inspected the cargo inside the hold from the hatch coaming and found that all the discolored layers in hold 4 had been discharged. In holds 2 and 5, where the discharge volume was lower, the discolored layers near the top were still visible. Additionally, some areas of the cargo in the hold showed different colors due to the presence of a large amount of bean pods and debris, and the flowability of the cargo was very poor.
Subsequently, we conducted a close-up inspection of the cargo inside the hold and found that some of the cargo contained a large amount of debris or bean pods, causing localized areas to appear white, brown, or even black. We also noticed that the cargo contained a small amount of black carbonized beans and some reddish-brown heat-damaged beans.
For the discolored layer cargo, we took samples and found that the cargo had already changed color, the seed coat had turned brown and wrinkled, and the cotyledons were dark brown. Mold was visible on the surface of the broken grains. This is a typical manifestation of heat-damaged soybeans. Normal soybeans were not found in the cargo sample from this layer.
We measured the temperature of the cargo surface within one meter of the ladder near the cargo hold and found that the temperature was about 30 degrees Celsius. The ambient temperature was about 17.6 degrees Celsius.
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 gasket and other components of the hatch cover were in good condition.
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 the cargo on board has suffered damage, with the cargo in hold 4 being considered severely damaged and the rest being considered slightly damaged. SGS sampling is still ongoing. The cargo owner believes that the ventilation on the vessel may have been poor, as they noticed obvious signs of sweating on the surface of the cargo when the hatch was opened and provided photos. From the photos provided, it appears that the cargo hold surface has mold and streaks on the surface of the cargo piles. Based on our experience, this is usually caused by sweating in the cargo 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 of the cargo or external sources of heat. According to the general arrangement plan, there are no fuel tanks around 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. We also found black carbonized beans mixed in with the cargo, which require strict 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, from another perspective, if the heat damage occurred during the shipping process, whether the cargo can self-heat depends on the humidity ERH of the surrounding environment. But we did not find any signs of water ingress on site, which 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, regardless of what measures the crew took, the cargo would suffer heat damage due to its high moisture content, which is a natural property of the cargo.