Faurinone

Why this page is short contested

Faurinone is a genuinely thinly documented compound and this page is not going to pretend otherwise. It appears on this shelf for one reason: the operator's Temple Pharmacopoeia records faurinone at 20.66 percent of the essential oil of Helichrysum petiolare, noted as a first identification in that species. That makes it the single largest reported constituent of a material in the operator's inventory, which is a good enough reason to have a page — a formulator working with H. petiolare oil is working with something that is one fifth faurinone, and ought to be told that the pharmacology of that fifth is unknown. What follows is what is actually known and, more importantly, what is not. An honest short page is better than a padded long one, and every terpene reference that pads out its rare-compound entries with plausible-sounding activity claims is doing the reader harm.

Contested — caveat. LOW EVIDENCE PAGE. The quantitative figure rests on a single analysis recorded in an internal operator document. No pharmacology, toxicology or physical-constant data are cited here because this shelf has none it can verify.

Sources: Van Kush Family Research Institute (operator) 2026*

What is reported contested

Faurinone is described as a sesquiterpenoid ketone. The operator document records it at 20.66 percent of the H. petiolare essential oil, as a first identification in that species, alongside (E)-beta-ocimene at 17.21 percent — so H. petiolare is chemically distinguished from its congeners H. odoratissimum and H. cymosum, which are dominated by alpha-pinene with 1,8-cineole and (E)-caryophyllene respectively. The review literature on South African Helichrysum species records a broad and species-variable sesquiterpenoid chemistry, which is consistent with a ketone of this kind being present, but this shelf does not claim that the review names faurinone specifically at this figure. The name appears to derive from Valeriana fauriei, the Japanese valerian from which the compound is reported to have been first described; that etymology is given as probable, not as a verified provenance, and no primary structural paper is cited here because none has been verified.

Contested — caveat. Single-source quantitative figure. The Valeriana fauriei etymology and the C15H24O formula are both unverified against a primary source and should be checked before being relied on in any specification or publication.

Sources: Van Kush Family Research Institute (operator) 2026* · Lourens ACU 2008

What is NOT known contested

The following are open questions, listed explicitly so that nobody mistakes the silence for an absence of interest. There is no established receptor or enzyme target for faurinone. There is no reported binding at cannabinoid receptors, and nothing about a sesquiterpenoid ketone skeleton predicts one — recall that alpha-humulene and beta-caryophyllene share a formula and differ completely in receptor behaviour, so skeletal analogy is a poor guide here. There is no animal behavioural or anti-inflammatory data this shelf can cite. There is no toxicology: no acute dose data, no sensitisation data, no repeat-exposure data. There is no verified boiling point, vapour pressure or thermal-degradation profile, which means there is no measured basis for a vaporization band and the band given in the facts above is an analogy to other sesquiterpenoids. There is no reference-standard availability statement, which matters directly for analysis: a compound without a commercially available certified reference standard cannot be quantified against a calibration curve, and a lab reporting it is most likely reporting a library-match identification with a relative area percent rather than a true quantitation. That is the same analytical limitation the COA shelf discusses for novel cannabinoids, and it applies here.

• No receptor or enzyme target documented.
• No animal or human pharmacology documented.
• No toxicology, sensitisation or repeat-exposure data documented.
• No verified physical constants; the vaporization band on this page is an inference from compound class.
• Reference-standard availability unknown; a reported figure may be a library match with relative area percent, not a quantitation.

Contested — caveat. This section documents an absence of evidence. Absence of reported toxicity is not evidence of safety, and a compound at 20 percent of an oil with no toxicology behind it is a reason for caution in a topical or inhaled product, not a reason for confidence.

Sources: Van Kush Family Research Institute (operator) 2026* · Gertsch J 2008

Industry notes and a research opening

For a formulator: if you are working with H. petiolare oil, a fifth of the volatile fraction is a compound with no published safety or pharmacology data. That is not a prohibition — plenty of traditional materials are in that position and the plant has a long record of ritual and medicinal use — but it should be a documented known-unknown in your product file rather than an invisible one, and it argues for characterising the oil you actually have rather than relying on a species name. For a researcher: this is a real opening. A compound at 20 percent of a distinctive traditional material, with a first-identification claim attached and essentially no pharmacology, is exactly the kind of gap that a small, well-designed characterisation study could close. The first useful steps are unglamorous: confirm the identification against an authentic standard, establish the physical constants, and publish the structure with a verifiable identifier — none of which this shelf can currently point to.

Sources: Van Kush Family Research Institute (operator) 2026* · Lourens ACU 2008