Does Graphene Actually Do Anything? A Test
A controlled comparison of a graphene-infused coating against an equivalent silica coating, testing the dust and heat claims nobody has measured.
By Ducky, Co-founder and Lead Tester, ShineMD
Ducky works for Shine Master Detailers LLC, which makes ShineMD.
Products under test
- ShineMD Ultimate Shine and ProtectionOur productMade by us
- Nexgen Ceramic Spray Silicon DioxidePurchased at retail
Method
Two matched black panels are prepared identically by decontamination, clay, machine polish and solvent wipe. One receives our graphene-infused coating, the other a silica coating of comparable silica loading and no graphene content, applied per each manufacturer's instructions and cured for the specified time. Both panels are then exposed side by side under identical conditions and evaluated on the three claims the category actually makes for graphene. Dust accumulation is assessed by photographing both panels from a fixed position every 24 hours across 30 days without any intervening cleaning, with images compared for particulate coverage. Thermal behaviour is measured by logging surface temperature with an infrared thermometer at fixed intervals through full-sun exposure on matched days, recording ambient temperature and solar conditions alongside each reading. Marring resistance is assessed by a controlled number of standardised wash passes using identical technique, with the surface then inspected and photographed under fixed inspection lighting. Each measurement is repeated on swapped panel positions to rule out a position effect from mounting or shading.
Instruments
- Infrared surface thermometer
- Fixed-position camera rig with consistent lighting
- Inspection light at fixed angle and distance
- Contact angle goniometer
Raw readings
Collection is under way. No readings have been taken yet.
Panels are prepared and the method above is fixed. Readings will appear in this table on the interval schedule, as they are taken, without editing. We would rather show an empty table than a number we have not measured.
Limitations of this test
Naming these is what separates a test from marketing.
- Matching two commercial products on silica loading is approximate. Formulations are proprietary, so the comparison cannot isolate graphene as cleanly as a laboratory formulation pair would.
- Dust accumulation depends heavily on local air conditions, pollen load and wind, none of which we control.
- Surface temperature is influenced by panel mounting and airflow as well as coating, which is why positions are swapped and repeated.
- A null result on the anti-static dust claim would not prove graphene does nothing, only that this effect is not detectable at this scale with these instruments.
- We manufacture the graphene product under test. That is the reason this test is designed to be able to fail, and why the method is published in full.
Graphene is the newest term in coating marketing and the least substantiated. In surveying what has been written about it we found essentially no falsifiable claims backed by measurement — and the single specific, testable claim we did find, that graphene coatings resist dust through an anti-static effect, came from a brand selling one.
We are that kind of brand. Which is exactly why we are testing it.
The claims actually being made
Strip away the language about Nobel prizes and tensile strength, which is true of graphene as a material but says nothing about a spray coating containing some of it, and three testable claims remain. That graphene coatings attract less dust. That they run cooler in sun. That they resist marring better because the material is more flexible than silica alone.
Those are all measurable, and none of them appear to have been measured publicly by anyone.
We are prepared to publish a null result
This is the uncomfortable part and the reason the test is worth running. If the graphene panel accumulates the same dust as the silica panel, runs the same temperature, and mars the same amount, we will publish that. On our own site. About our own product.
A brand that publishes a null result on its own marketing claim earns something that no amount of favourable copy buys. And frankly, if graphene turns out to contribute nothing measurable, we would rather know it than keep selling the story.
Data collection is under way.