Reliable method to reconstitute SLU-PP-332?

M

Medex

Explorer
Joined
Feb 3, 2026
Messages
19
Reaction score
2
Location
US
Has anyone on here reconstituted SLU-PP-332 for subq use before? I bought a kit before doing any reading, and only now realize it's hydrophobic, so BAC water by itself would simply destroy it.

A few YouTube videos I came across mix .5ml DMSO with the same volume of BAC water for reconstitution, yet every source I've seen warns this is a terrible plan, since injecting DMSO at that strength is quite toxic. A couple of places mention doing DMSO first, followed by PSB 80(tween 80), then phosphate buffered saline, which brings the DSMO down to 1%, or near 1%.

Anybody? Thanks for whatever guidance you can offer, and feel free to laugh if you must.
 
Medex said:

Has anyone on here reconstituted SLU-PP-332 for subq use before? I bought a kit before doing any reading, and only now realize it's hydrophobic, so BAC water by itself would simply destroy it.

A few YouTube videos I came across mix .5ml DMSO with the same volume of BAC water for reconstitution, yet every source I've seen warns this is a terrible plan, since injecting DMSO at that strength is quite toxic. A couple of places mention doing DMSO first, followed by PSB 80(tween 80), then phosphate buffered saline, which brings the DSMO down to 1%, or near 1%.

Anybody? Thanks for whatever guidance you can offer, and feel free to laugh if you must.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm aware — practically nobody has done this. Still, after steering clear of sites that wouldn't want to be tied to people calling themselves 'researchers,' I eventually came across the following:

"For very hydrophobic peptides, start by dissolving them in a small volume of 100% DMSO (30–50 μl), then add that solution dropwise, slowly, into a stirred aqueous buffered solution — PBS or whatever buffer you prefer — until you hit the target concentration. Once the peptide solution turns [cloudiness]turbid, you've hit the solubility ceiling. Sonication aids peptide dissolution.

Rules of thumb:

For nearly all cells, 0.1% DMSO is regarded as safe.

In cell culture, a final 0.5% DMSO concentration is broadly used and shows no cytotoxicity.

With certain cells, 1% DMSO produces no toxicity at all, yet 0.5% DMSO remains the suggested level.

Some cells have been used successfully with 5% DMSO."

Uh, still looking...
 
Medex said:

Has anyone on here reconstituted SLU-PP-332 for subq use before? I bought a kit before doing any reading, and only now realize it's hydrophobic, so BAC water by itself would simply destroy it.

A few YouTube videos I came across mix .5ml DMSO with the same volume of BAC water for reconstitution, yet every source I've seen warns this is a terrible plan, since injecting DMSO at that strength is quite toxic. A couple of places mention doing DMSO first, followed by PSB 80(tween 80), then phosphate buffered saline, which brings the DSMO down to 1%, or near 1%.

Anybody? Thanks for whatever guidance you can offer, and feel free to laugh if you must.
Click to expand...
Capsules were my choice partly for that reason. Whether they work better or worse, I can't say—but they're simpler to deal with.
 
I've come across reports where folks combined 0.2mL or 0.3mL of DMSO with 2.3mL or 2.2mL of BAC, and they reported good outcomes.

Perhaps adding a larger amount of BAC would bring the DMSO concentration down?
 
I had been wondering if doing that would ruin a vial. Looks like I'll just have to test it out! Could you possibly send me the links to those sources you mentioned? Thanks
 
Medex said:

I had been wondering if doing that would ruin a vial. Looks like I'll just have to test it out! Could you possibly send me the links to those sources you mentioned? Thanks
Click to expand...
Since then, I can't recall the source — it came up during one of my late-night search sessions. I'm planning to test it out too.
 
latviantower said:

Tablets are the route to go.
Click to expand...
Having thrown away 2 vials of Slu while attempting to solve this, I suspect this might be the top choice. From the forum's vendors, I can't find any…
 
I've placed 2 orders for Slu. The batch from my first order came with a yellowish color, and it simply would not dissolve no matter how I approached it. The second batch lacked that yellow hue, and when I used DMSO, it dissolved without any problem.

What that indicates, I can't say. But within a FB group I belong to, several other members have reported the exact same pattern: a yellow appearance means it won't reconstitute.

When I reached out to the vendor who sold me the yellow batch to ask about it, I never received a reply. I've cut ties with them completely.
 
Mochizuki0124 said:

Having gone through everything here, my takeaway is that Slu isn't something I need 🤣
Click to expand...
I tend to want every single thing out there, and SLU is no exception — but I'm definitely going with the oral route!

Seeing people inject DMSO really caught me off guard — no shade intended! It's just that a while back I picked some up for topical use, hoping it would help my skin take in MSM, and even for topical use there was barely any research out there…the only things I could dig up were a 60 Minutes segment from the 1980s or 90s about topical DMSO being used on racetracks for horses' pain and healing, plus a handful of anecdotal reports. I do inject gray peps, which (many of them) also come with thin research behind them, but DMSO is a byproduct chemical from making paper (and weirdly, using it on my skin gives me garlic breath). I can't say whether it was the DMSO, the MSM, or the two together, but I broke out in awful hives and ended up at the clinic. That was the last time I touched DMSO. Still, I'm happy that others have worked out how to make it work for what they need!

TLDR: Imma use oral SLU 🤣
 
Hold off until SLUPP 915 comes around. Sales for it are beginning to appear at this point, assuming that 915 is genuine.
 
Chili777 said:

Hold off until SLUPP 915 comes around. Sales for it are beginning to appear at this point, assuming that 915 is genuine.
Click to expand...
Assuming the name reflects a close resemblance, it likely shares 332's hydrophobic nature
 
Medex said:

Chili777 said:

Hold off until SLUPP 915 comes around. Sales for it are beginning to appear at this point, assuming that 915 is genuine.
Click to expand...
Assuming the name reflects a close resemblance, it likely shares 332's hydrophobic nature
Click to expand...
It's made for oral use and built to be absorbed that way, which sets it apart from 332. Not the same at all.
 
Back
Top