Roof Rejuvenation Technology Compared: What Independent Third-Party Testing Actually Proves (And What Marketing Claims Don't)

Why Particle Size Is the Wrong Question

The roof rejuvenation market has become saturated with marketing claims about molecular size, penetration depth, and patented formulas. Some products promise their particles are smaller than others. Some claim deeper absorption into asphalt shingles. Some emphasize the chemical category of their treatment modified triglycerides, bio-oils, nano polymer emulsions, soy derivatives, nanosilica.

From a homeowner's perspective, none of these claims are verifiable. You cannot put a roof under an electron microscope. You cannot independently measure the penetration depth of a treatment after application. You cannot compare two competing molecular formulations without a laboratory budget that exceeds the cost of the roof itself.

What you can verify is whether a product has been tested by an accredited, independent third-party laboratory against established North American standards and what classification it achieved. That is the only objective measure of performance in this category. Everything else is marketing.

This article walks through the three testing standards that matter for asphalt shingle rejuvenation, explains what they actually measure, and gives homeowners a five-question framework for evaluating any product they're considering including ours.

The Three Independent Standards That Actually Measure
Roof Performance

Each of these standards exists because the roofing industry needed objective, repeatable, scientifically rigorous ways to compare materials. They are used by:

These standards are not optional, easily faked, or open to interpretation. Each has a specific protocol, specific equipment, specific pass/fail criteria, and specific laboratories accredited to administer them. A product either meets a given classification or it does not. There is no middle ground.

Now consider this: of all the roof rejuvenation products currently marketed to North American homeowners, only a small fraction have been independently tested against any of these three standards. Even fewer have achieved the highest classification under any of them. Marketing language about "third-party tested," "laboratory verified," and "patented technology" common across the category is not equivalent to a documented UL 2218 Class 4 or ASTM D3161 Class F classification.

Here is what each standard actually measures.

Three independent testing standards for roofing materials UL 2218 Class 4 impact resistance, ASTM D3161 Class F wind resistance (110 mph), UL 790 Class A fire resistance showing the highest classifications achieved by GoNano nanosilica treatment.

UL 2218: The Impact Resistance Standard

Of the three standards, UL 2218 is arguably the most important for homeowners — because impact damage from hail is the single most common cause of insurance claims on residential roofs in North America. UL 2218 is administered by UL Solutions, the independent testing organization that has set safety standards in North America since 1894.

The protocol is straightforward. Steel balls of specific diameters are dropped from specific heights onto roofing material samples. The diameters and drop heights are calibrated to simulate the impact energy of hailstones at different sizes. The treated material is graded based on whether it cracks, splits, or maintains structural integrity under repeated impact:

Standard architectural asphalt shingles typically meet Class 2 or Class 3 under UL 2218. Class 4 impact resistance is rare and usually requires premium impact-resistant shingle products purchased at significant additional cost during roof installation.

This is significant because no other roof rejuvenation product has documented an equivalent finding under UL 2218. Most surface-level and oil-based treatments have either not been tested under this protocol or have not achieved Class 3 or Class 4 classification when tested. Without a UL 2218 Class rating, homeowners have no objective basis on which to compare the impact resistance benefit of one product against another.

ASTM D3161: The Wind Resistance Standard

Wind damage is the second leading cause of insurance claims on asphalt shingle roofs. ASTM D3161 measures how well a roofing material including any treatment applied to it performs under sustained wind. It's the standard used to certify roofs in coastal regions, hurricane zones, and tornado-prone areas.

The protocol uses a controlled wind tunnel that subjects sample shingles to sustained wind speeds for a defined duration. The shingles are evaluated for lift, tear-off, granule loss, and structural integrity. Classes are awarded based on the maximum sustained wind speed the material withstands without failure:

UL 790: The Fire Resistance Standard

With wildfire incidence rising across the western United States and Canada, UL 790 has moved from being a technical detail to a mandatory consideration for many homeowners. The standard evaluates three characteristics of fire performance:

Class A is the highest classification and represents the strictest performance benchmark. Many wildfire-prone jurisdictions in California, Colorado, British Columbia, and Alberta now require Class A roof assemblies for new construction and major renovations. Insurance carriers in these regions increasingly look for Class A documentation as part of underwriting.

The Difference Between Manufacturer-Claimed Testing
and Independent Third-Party Verification

This is the distinction that most homeowners and most product marketing gloss over. A product can claim it is "tested," "laboratory verified," or even "third-party tested" without those claims meaning what a homeowner would assume they mean.

Three categories of testing claim exist in this market:

Category 1 — Internal manufacturer testing
This is testing conducted by the product manufacturer in its own facilities, using its own equipment, against criteria it designed itself. It produces useful internal product development data but has zero standing as objective performance verification. A homeowner cannot meaningfully compare two products on the basis of internal manufacturer claims because each manufacturer is grading its own work.

Category 2 — Contracted laboratory testing without standardized protocol
This is testing where a manufacturer hires an outside laboratory to conduct customized testing of its product. The laboratory may be reputable, but the testing methodology is selected by the manufacturer, the specific failure modes tested are selected by the manufacturer, and the results are not benchmarked against any other product. This is what most products mean when they claim "third-party lab tested." It is better than internal testing  but it does not produce a class rating that compares to any other product.

Category 3 — Independent testing against standardized industry protocols
This is testing under UL 2218, ASTM D3161, UL 790, or equivalent standardized protocols, conducted by accredited testing organizations (UL Solutions, ASTM-accredited labs, IBHS, Impact Chemistry, CNETE). The protocol is identical for every product tested. The criteria are public. The result is a class rating that has the same meaning across every roofing material and treatment in North America.Only

Category 3 produces results that homeowners and insurance underwriters can use to compare products meaningfully.

What "Patented" Means, and What It Doesn't

Patent protection is a legal designation administered by national patent offices. Its sole function is to prevent competitors from using the patented formulation without authorization. A patent is granted based on novelty (the formulation must not exist in prior art) and non-obviousness (it must not be a trivial variation of existing technology). The patent office does not, at any point in the process, evaluate whether the product actually works as the patent application claims.

This is why "patented" appears so frequently in roof rejuvenation marketing it is a relatively easy designation to obtain, and it sounds scientifically credible to consumers. But "patented" is not a claim about performance. It is a claim about ownership.

By contrast, a UL 2218 Class 4 classification, an ASTM D3161 Class F classification, or a UL 790 Class A classification is a documented performance result. The laboratory conducted the testing under standardized protocol. The product either met the classification or it did not. The result is verifiable through the testing body, not through the manufacturer.

This distinction matters because it gives homeowners a clear way to evaluate competing claims. "Patented modified triglyceride formula" or "patented polymer emulsion" describes what a product is made of not what it does under independent testing. "UL 2218 Class 4" describes what a product does under standardized impact testing regardless of what it is made of.

Molecular Size, Penetration Depth, and What Actually Matters

Marketing in this category has increasingly focused on claims about molecular size. Some products claim particles in the 30 to 200 nanometer range. Others claim smaller. Some emphasize that they use modified triglycerides, nano polymer emulsions, or proprietary formulations. The implicit argument is that smaller particles penetrate deeper, and deeper penetration produces better outcomes.

Two problems with this argument.
‍
‍First, particle size below a certain threshold becomes scientifically irrelevant for the substrate in question. Asphalt shingles have natural porosity at the tens-to-hundreds-of-nanometers scale. A particle small enough to enter that pore structure penetrates the shingle. Particles substantially smaller than the pore structure penetrate further but do not necessarily bond with the asphalt matrix in a way that produces measurable structural improvement. The relevant question is not "how small," but "does the particle chemically react with the asphalt once inside the shingle?"

‍Second, penetration without chemical bonding is meaningless. A liquid that absorbs into a shingle and then evaporates, washes out, or breaks down under UV exposure produces no lasting performance benefit regardless of how deep the original penetration was. Many oil-based and bio-oil treatments demonstrate this failure mode: initial penetration is followed by gradual loss of treatment, requiring reapplication every five years to maintain even partial performance.

GoNano's nanosilica particles measure 40 to 60 nanometers small enough to enter the natural pore structure of asphalt shingles. Once inside, they undergo a chemical reaction at the interface between the silica surface and the surrounding asphalt. The nanosilica particles remain silica, but their surfaces become chemically coupled to the asphalt matrix through silane bridges forming an interfacial network that ties the inorganic particles into the organic asphalt structure. The result is a distributed nano-reinforced network embedded within the binder, not a new hybrid particle. These bonds reinforce the shingle from within and do not wash out or evaporate.

Diagram of nanosilica particles forming silane bridges with the asphalt matrix, creating a
distributed nano-reinforced network within the shingle binder.

The proof that this mechanism produces measurable improvement is not the particle size claim itself. It is the independently documented finding that GoNano-treated shingles improve from Class 1 to Class 4 under UL 2218 a result no other roof rejuvenation product has documented under the same protocol.

Five Questions to Evaluate Any Roof Rejuvenation
Product's Testing Claims

Homeowners can evaluate any roof rejuvenation product's testing claims by asking five questions: Has the product been tested under UL 2218? Under ASTM D3161? Under UL 790? Which accredited laboratories conducted the testing? Can the manufacturer provide copies of the test reports? If a product cannot answer all five questions specifically, its testing claims are not equivalent to independently verified performance.

Use these five questions on any product you are considering including GoNano. A confident, well-tested product welcomes the questions. A product whose testing is more marketing than science will deflect.

01

Has this product been tested under UL 2218? What class did it achieve?

A specific class designation (Class 1, 2, 3, or 4) is the answer that confirms independent testing. Vague responses"tested for impact resistance," "improves impact strength" without a UL 2218 class designation indicate the product has not been tested under the standard.

02

Has this product been tested under ASTM D3161? What class did it achieve?

Similarly, the answer should be a specific class (A, D, or F). "Wind resistant" without a class designation means the product has not been tested under the ASTM D3161 protocol.

03

Has this product been tested under UL 790? What class did it achieve?

Class A, B, or C. "Fire safe" or "does not contribute to fire" without a UL 790 class designation is not equivalent to having a UL 790 rating.

04

Which accredited laboratories conducted the testing?

The answer should be specific named organizations. UL Solutions, ASTM International, IBHS, Impact Chemistry, CNETE, and equivalent organizations are accredited and independent. Generic responses like "a third-party lab" or "an independent testing facility" without a name are not equivalent.

05

Can you provide copies of the test reports?

A manufacturer that has actually conducted independent testing can produce the reports — or at minimum, executive summaries of the reports with the testing body's credentials. Reluctance or refusal to provide test documentation is itself an answer.

What GoNano's Independent Testing Documents

GoNano's nanosilica roof treatments have been independently tested under UL 2218 (achieving Class 4 impact resistance the highest classification), ASTM D3161 (achieving Class F wind resistance 110 mph sustained), and UL 790 (achieving Class A fire resistance the highest classification). Testing has been conducted by UL Solutions, Impact Chemistry (Green Center), and CNETE totaling over $1 million in independent verification, with additional IBHS-aligned performance testing ongoing.

For context, here is what each of these credentials means in practical terms:

UL 2218 • Class 4

The rating used by most North American insurance carriers to qualify roofs for hail-related premium discounts. The same rating that homeowners obtain by installing premium impact-resistant shingles during roof replacement – at a typical cost of $30,000 to $50,000 – can be obtained on existing shingles through Structural Roof Rejuvenation.

ASTM D3161 • Class F

The wind classification used to certify roofs in hurricane and severe storm regions. It corresponds to sustained winds of approximately 110 mph.

UL 790 • Class A

The fire classification increasingly required by building codes in wildfire-prone jurisdictions. It is the highest fire resistance rating available for roof assemblies in North America.

These are not internal claims, manufacturer-funded test results, or proprietary measurements. They are standardized classifications administered by accredited independent organizations under public protocols. Each is documented, repeatable, and benchmarked against every other roofing product in North America under the same standard.

The investment GoNano has made in obtaining these credentials over $1 million in independent third-party testing is what separates Structural Roof Rejuvenation as a category from surface-level treatments, oil-based rejuvenation, and other approaches that rely on marketing claims rather than standardized verification.

Independent third-party testing organizations that have verified GoNano roof rejuvenation performance,
including UL Solutions, Impact Chemistry, and CNETE.