Feb. 18,2016  13  US 2016/0044917 Al  growth of powdery mildew. When formulated as slurry or  suspended in a carrier product such as bentonite clay or ver› miculite, this product may be used to form barriers to repel the  Coqui frog and other pests. The liquid solution of the product  may also be used to inhibit the growth of harmful bacteria  such as  E. coli, salmonella,  and simple rot bacteria present on  post-harvest fruit, produce and food preparation surfaces,  however the antimicrobial properties for some of the ingre› dients of this pesticide are clearly established under other  patents. The Coqui frog is presently causing the most concern  because it is threatening the export of agricultural products  from Hawaii to the US Mainland as well as having a stressful  impact on the residents and visitors to Hawaii who are in  many localities no longer able to experience "Quiet Hawaiian  nights," at least without earplugs.  [0148]  When a sprayed ACS-P solution is left to dry on a  surface, the post-application composition remains lethal to  frogs indefinitely and until the product is further diluted or  washed away with water.  If  not killed after coming into con› tact with this surface residue, frogs will vigorously seek to  avoid further contact. One aspect of the lasting lethality of this  composition is a product that is useful for forming barriers in  nurseries and commercial buildings.  [0149]  Present manufacturing and distribution costs indi› cate ACS-P can be made available at wholesale and retail  costs that are substantially lower than citric acid.  If  desired,  the product can be used to cut or extend citric acid so as to  double the quantity of solution while maintaining equal or  lower cost than the original quantity.ACS-Pis non-corrosive  and at the strengths used in this study, it has no significant  hazards to humans or animals.  [0150]  Given the enormous buffering capacity of earth,  there would be negligible risk of ground water contamination  from the small amount of post-application runoff that would  result from application as a medium or mist spray. A drench› ing type application using a fire hose nozzle is not required to  use this product. The disadvantages of ACS-Pare few. Nor› mal eye and face mask protection as typically used in the  application of any insecticide should be used when applying  this product as minor irritation may occur if the product is  allowed to come into contact with the eyes, cuts, or wounds.  This irritation would not be any more substantial than that  caused by lemon juice and easily relieved by flooding the  exposed area with water. Due to the acidity of the concen› trated form of this product, it will damage cotton clothing and  discolor aluminum and galvanized metal, although still not  corrosive to human skin. All in all, it is this author’s opinion  that this product represents a potentially valuable addition to  the present array of products available for combating the  spread of Coqui frogs. More such products are urgently  needed and this product should be given strong support/con› sideration for EPA registration as a minimum risk pesticide to  replace hydrated lime.  [0151]  An object of the new pesticide product used to the  control of Coqui frogs is a combination of different types of  acids with other organic/inorganic acids and their respective  salts. Previous examples have illustrated how various concen› trations of Acidic Calcium Sulfate (ACS-100 or ACS-50)  could be used as a low phytotoxic pesticide for Coqui frogs  and other soft-bodied species. One of ordinary skill in the art  will appreciate that the combinational use of other strong-,  weak- and super-acids and salts can be formulated to remain  toxic to frogs, but stay environmentally friendly according to  EPA guidelines. As such, ACS-100, ACS-50, sulfuric acid,  propionic acid, citric acid and/or their respective salts in  combination with one or more of the previous mentioned  acids is considered to be within the spirit and scope of the  invention.  [0152]  As mentioned in other examples, ACS-P affords an  advantage ofhaving compositions capable of forming both a  slurry and a dry product, which can be utilized in various  types of applications. One disadvantage of a new composition  (i.e. ACS-P, ACS-100, or ACS-50), which is unknown to the  environmental protection agency ("EPA"), is whether or not  its use would be approved quickly enough to stop frog infes› tations. As such, one aspect of the current invention is to  improve the frog killing effects of compounds that are already  listed as EPA approved pesticide ingredients, or for frog  eradication.  [0153]  More specifically, compounds such as propionic  acid, which are already approved as pesticides, can be used to  take advantage of methods described herein to titrate lower  pH levels for the purpose of killing frogs, without being as  toxic to plants. Propionic acid (systematically named pro› panoic acid) is a naturally-occurring carboxylic acid with  chemical formula CH$_{3}$CH$_{2}$COOH. It is a clear liquid with a  pungent odor. The anion CH$_{3}$CH$_{2}$ coo- as well as the salts  and esters of propionic acid are known as propionates ( or  propanoates) and are considered to be functional chemical  equivalents thereof  [0154]  Although not wanting to be bound by current regu› lations and/or theory, ACS should be formulated to meet the  HAZMAT cutoff of pH 2.0, however, titrating ACS with  propionic acid or propionic acid salts can be utilized to  increase or decrease the pH. In contrast, properly formulated  propionic acid is at least as effective as ACS alone in killing  frogs, and can be formulated will little effort to have a pH  within the HAZMAT regulations of about 2.0. Unfortunately,  an increase in concentration may lead to increased phytotox› icity. More specifically, propionic acid is available as a dry  product and could be used in much the same way as citric acid  is now being used and would cost less per gallon when com› pared to citric acid. For example, 1 gallon of 16% citric acid  costs about $2.40/gallon (retail) and is considered phytotoxic  to many plants, whereas, 1 gallon of 16% propionic acid can  be formulated to have a lower pH and costs only about $1.00  per gallon with similar or superior phytotoxicity.  [0155]  Although EPA regulations can present hurdles for  entry of new compositions into the pesticide market, citric  acid and/or propionic acid are currently products that are on  EPAs list 4 and can safely be used in pesticides without  concern for non-target species and or negative impact on the  water table. As such, modified formulas of citric acid having  lower phototoxicity may also have a lower hurdle for EPA  approval. More specifically, it is possible to use ACS in a  synergistic way with citric acid to actually lower the 16%  concentration that is know to have phytotoxic properties,  while retaining the capacity to kill the frogs. For this reason,  it may be advantageous to lower the 16% citric acid concen› tration in order to lower its known phytotoxic effects.  Example 9  Increasing Efficiency by Combining Acid and Salts  Example 8  Dried Pesticide Retains Killing Efficacy 