Most companies in this category tell you their product was lab tested and leave it there. We would rather show you the numbers, including the ones that are unremarkable, because a page that only reports wins is not evidence. It is advertising with a lab coat on.
How the testing was done
Testing was carried out by PRI Construction Materials Technologies, an independent accredited construction materials laboratory in Tampa, Florida, between 1 May and 20 June 2025. The samples were aged multi-layered asphalt shingles. Shingle Hero Roof Rejuvenator was mixed 50/50 with water and applied in a single coat at 100 square feet per gallon, then left to cure for seven days before any specimen was built. Untreated shingles from the same stock were run alongside as the control.
Every test below is a recognised ASTM standard method. Where a test has a pass threshold, we give it.
Wind resistance — ASTM D3161, modified to 60 mph
| Specimen | Result |
|---|---|
| Treated | 3 minutes |
| Untreated | 0.5 minutes |
This is the strongest result of the five. Treated shingles held a sustained 60 mph wind six times longer than untreated shingles from the same roof before failing. In Florida, where the question is usually whether the tabs stay sealed through a storm, that is the number that matters most.
Fire — ASTM E108, spread of flame
| Specimen | Flame spread | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Treated | approx. 4 ft | Pass — Class A |
| Untreated | approx. 1.3 ft | Pass — Class A |
Both passed. Treated shingles retained the Class A rating, which is the highest fire classification a roof covering can carry.
This one is worth dwelling on, because it answers the most serious objection anyone raises about treating a shingle roof. GAF cautions in its technical bulletin that applying a coating that is not itself UL listed means a roof is no longer Class A listed. That is a legitimate concern and we take it seriously. Here an accredited laboratory tested it directly and the treated assembly passed Class A.
Being straight about the detail: flame did spread further on the treated deck, roughly four feet against about one and a third feet untreated. Both are inside the six-foot limit Class A allows, so both pass, but we are not going to tell you treatment improved fire performance. It did not. It kept the rating.
Moisture vapour permeance — ASTM E96, Procedure A
| Specimen | Perms |
|---|---|
| Untreated | 2.1 |
| Treated | 0.03 |
Treatment cut moisture vapour transmission by 98.6 percent. The shingle became substantially more water resistant, which is the property most people mean when they ask whether the treatment waterproofs a roof.
The honest caveat: a material at 0.03 perms is behaving as a vapour retarder, and the roofing industry raises moisture movement as a concern with any product applied over shingles. On a properly ventilated attic the research suggests very little moisture moves out through the shingle layer anyway, so in practice this is unlikely to cause trouble. But it is a genuine trade-off rather than a pure win, and you should hear that from us rather than find it later.
The two that showed no change
| Test | Untreated | Treated | Read |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tear strength — ASTM D1922 / D228 | 941 gf | 909 gf | No meaningful change |
| Fastener pull-through — ASTM D3462 / D228 | 23 lbf | 22 lbf | No meaningful change |
Neither moved. The small differences are inside the variation between individual specimens, so the correct reading is that treatment did not change either property. Fastener pull-through stayed above the 20 lbf minimum in both cases.
We are including these because leaving them out would be the dishonest version of this page. Treatment restores flexibility and it holds the roof down better in wind. It does not make an aged shingle mechanically stronger, and anyone claiming otherwise is telling you something the testing does not show.
Granule loss: what we see, and what we have not measured
Granules in the gutter are the thing most homeowners actually notice, so it deserves a straight answer. In side-by-side comparisons on aged shingles, granules bond more securely after treatment and are less prone to loosening. That is a consistent observation and it matches what the treatment is doing, which is putting flexibility back into the asphalt the granules are embedded in.
But we want to be precise about what kind of claim that is. Granule adhesion has its own ASTM test method, and it was not part of this testing programme. So the sentence above is a field observation, not a laboratory result, and we are not going to dress it up as one by putting it in the table with the numbers that were measured. If we run that test, we will publish whatever it says.
What this testing does not tell you
- It does not measure added years of roof life. No test in this programme ran long enough to, and no published study anywhere has measured that for any product in this category. That is why we sell a five-year transferable warranty rather than a lifespan number.
- It does not cover hail or impact resistance. Not tested here, so we make no claim about it.
- It does not put a number on granule adhesion, for the reason above.
- It was performed on aged multi-layered shingles from one source. Your roof is not that roof, which is why every job starts with an inspection.
Lab results are one thing. Whether your roof is a candidate is decided on the roof, in person, in writing. Roofs that do not qualify get told so.
