sign in sign up
<<
Home , Sewage treatment

JASEM ISSN 1119-8362 Full-text Available Online at J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Mgt. March, 2006 All rights reserved www.bioline.org.br/ja Vol. 10 (1) 73 - 77

Sand Intermittent Technology for safer Domestic Treatment *1PRASAD, G; 1RAJEEV RAJPUT; 2CHOPRA, A K 1Department of Zoology and . Gurukula Kangri University, Haridwar, INDIA *2Department of Botany and Microbiology, Gurukula Kangri University, Haridwar, INDIA

ABSTRACT: The present investigation was undertaken to find out reduction potential of Sand intermittent filtration bed in term of physico-chemical and microbiological characteristics of domestic sewage. The domestic sewage was filtered through Sand intermittent filtration beds of mixture of sand and soil at different ratio i.e. 1:1; 1:3; 3:1 and one set of 100% of each sand and soil were also taken. Results revealed that there was a significant pollution reduction in various physico-chemical and microbiological parameters of domestic sewage in sand soil mixture. In general sand and soil beds have shown better performance than only sand or soil bed for . Albeit Sand soil bed of 2 feet depth has been found better in term of pollution reduction ability than other depths used in the present study, but variation of pollution reduction potential has been recorded for different parameters in sand and soil bed of the same ratio. Mixture of Sand soil bed at ratio 3:1 has yielded better results in general than all other used ratio but for certain parameters stands equal with 1:1 ratio. Maximum percentage of reduction in pH i.e. 16.7% and in 27.9% was found at 2 feet depth in mixed sand and soil bed of 1:1 ratio. Maximum pollution reduction potential of intermittent filtration bed was recorded at 2 feet depth of sand and soil mixture at ratio of 3:1. Percentage of pollution reducing potential was found in CO2 83.4%, BOD 72.5%, COD 69.9%, Total alkalinity 37.9%, Total solids 88.5%, 86.1%, 91.2%, MPN 82.4% and SPC 78.4%. Minimum reduction ability was found in 100% sand and soil bed without mixture. @JASEM

Water pollution is a current global burning problem lots of energy and require more money for its as a large quantity of of earth planet i.e. 97% is maintenance. Economy of like stored in . Marine water is not suitable for India is not so good to afford such types of expensive domestic use due to high . Remaining 3% treatment plants. Besides these irregular power water is found in form of ice caps, and supply and labours problem has affected the working underground water. Since a very small quantity of and efficiency of the treatment plants. Sand filtration available water is being used in different way i.e. is one of the earliest forms of potable , and domestic purposes. Various and remains an important process for water types of such as industrial, domestic purification throughout the world (Campos et al., (solid and liquid) are reaching in surface water 2002). Simplicity and low cost capital and operating through different means. Most of the cities in India cost are principal advantages of sand filtration are situated on the banks of different . These compared with more sophisticated methods of water rivers are receiving both industrial and domestic treatment. Keeping in view of the facts present sewage, which has high percentage of untreated investigation was undertaken to find out the treatment sewage because most of the cities do not have an of domestic sewage. Some important contribution in adequate sewage treatment system. this area has been made by some workers and important can be quoted here (Huisman and Wood, In India it is estimated that more than 8642X106m3 of 1974; Zibell et al., 1975; Bellamy et al., 1985; Sarkar is generated per annum from 212 class I et al., 1994; Setvik et al., 1999; Weber–Shirk, 2002; cities and 241 class II towns. Only 23% of Rooklidge and Ketchum, 2002; Ausland et al., 2002). wastewater is being treated mostly at primary level But in India very little work (Rao et al., 2003) has prior to disposal and 77% untreated water is been done on sand intermittent filtration. In present discharged on land (Rajeswaramma and Gupta, study efforts have been made to develop a cost 2002). Indiscriminate discharge of domestic and effective and low maintenance model of sand industrial in the rivers has generated intermittent filtration for the treatment of wastewater alarming as maximum with a special reference to domestic sewage. for domestic use is being obtained from these rivers. Efforts have been made by the government of India MATERIAL AND METHODS force to setup the treatment plants in different parts of Experimental design of sand intermittent filtration country for the proper and efficient treatment of tank: A septic metal tank of 35cm radius with 5 feet domestic sewage. But these treatment plants consume height with strong stand and a sieve of 0.5 mm fitted

Corresponding Author: Prof. A.K.Chopra, E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: +91-01334-246366

Sand Intermittent Filtration Technology… 74

1 feet above from base was constructed. A device OC. Maximum percentage of temperature reduction is was also made at the base of the tank to take out 27.9% was observed after treatment with Sand treated water for analysis of physico-chemical and intermittent filtration of ratio 1:1 at depth of 2 feet. bacteriological characteristics. Decrease in temperature may be due to the climatic conditions as the sewage was stored in a steel tank Filter media: Different mixture of sand and soil were for filtration. Maximum fall in the temperature at 2 used for the filtration of domestic sewage. Sand feet depth may be perhaps due to taking more time Intermittent Filtration tank was filled by different and long distance travelled by wastewater during mixtures of sand and soil i.e. 100% sand, 100% soil, filtration. Temperature reduction has positive co- sand and soil 1:1, 3:1, 1:3. Different depth i.e. 1 feet, relation with retention time factor in the bed as 1.5 feet and 2 feet of each kind of sand and soil evident by minimum temperature reduction in the mixture was used as sand intermittent filtration for sand at 1feet depth. of domestic sewage filtration of domestic sewage. was found 85.0 mg/l before filtration. Complete reduction of turbidity was found in domestic sewage Sampling site and sample collection: Sewage at 2 feet depth in all the combinations of the filtration , located at the right bank of Ganga bed. Turbidity decreases due to decrease in Canal at Ramnager opposite Swami Shraddhanand suspended solids and dissolved solids. Ojeda (1989) Chowk, Haridwar (Uttaranchal) was selected for the was found that turbidity was removed by 90% using collection of domestic sewage. To obtain a composite slow sand filters. El-Taweel (2000) reported that 92% sample of domestic sewage, the site was selected as of turbidity was removed when slow was pumping station contains a mixture of domestic used for . Slight variation of sewage of different locality of Haridwar. Sampling these findings, from Ojeda (1990) and El-Taweel was done 4 times in the morning between 7.30 to (2000) may be due to variation of sand granules and 11.00 am and a time composite sample was collected soil particles size as well as the depth of the bed. in plastic container and brought to the laboratory for Total solids of domestic sewage was recorded 2740.0 analysis. mg/l. Total suspended solids of domestic sewage was found 1300 mg/l. Total solids and Total suspended Analysis of domestic sewage and filtered domestic solids shows maximum reduction i.e. 88.5% and sewage: Domestic sewage and filtered domestic 91.2% respectively at 2 feet depth in 3:1 ratio while sewage through different Sand intermittent filter were minimum reduction of Total solids was found i.e. analyzed for their various physico–chemical and 19.7% in soil only at 1 feet and minimum reduction bacteriological characteristics by standard methods of Total suspended solids was found i.e. 35.8% in (APHA, 1998). sand only at 1 feet. These findings are in accordance to the findings of Ellis (1987). He has reported 90 % RESULTS AND DISCUSSION reduction of suspended solid when it was filtered The values of different parameters of domestic through 3.5 feet sand filtration. Total dissolved solids sewage viz. Temperature, Turbidity, Total solids of domestic sewage were recorded 1440 mg/l. Total (TS), Total dissolved solids (TDS), Total suspended dissolved solids shows maximum reduction i.e. solids (TSS), pH, Total alkalinity, Free 86.1% at 2 feet depth in 3:1 ratio while minimum was dioxide (CO2), Chemical demand (COD), found i.e. 2.7% at 1 feet depth in soil only. Solids Dissolved oxygen (DO), Biochemical oxygen reduced after sand intermittent filtration because demand (BOD), Standard plate count (SPC) and mixture of soil and sand works as a sieve. These Most probable number (MPN) before filtration are results are in accordance with the findings of Kumar given in Table 1 and values of these parameters of et al. (2003). Also due to retention time of sewage domestic sewage after filtration with Sand into Sand intermittent filter reduces total solids, total intermittent filtration are given in Table 2. dissolved solids and total suspended solids Temperature of domestic sewage was recorded 25.98

G.PRASAD; RAJEEV RAJPUT; A.K.CHOPRA 74 Sand Intermittent Filtration Technology… 89

Table 1: Physico-chemical and microbiological parameters of Domestic Sewage before filtration (Values are mean ± Standard Deviation of six observations). Parameters Before Filtration

Temperature (oC) 25.98 ± 0.06 Turbidity (JTU) 85.0 ± 0.0 Total Solids (mg/l) 2740 ± 276.8 Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l) 1440 ± 185.90 Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) 1300 ± 293.66 pH 8.68 ± 0.03 Total Alkalinity (mg/l) 423.33 ± 3.72 Carbondioxide (mg/l) 143.73 ± 1.03 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 0.6 ± 0.0 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mg/l) 183.83 ± 8.16 (mg/l) 314.66 ± 4.13 Most Probable Number (MPN/100ml) 50833.33 ± 7756.71 Standard Plate Count (/ml) 254.22 X103 ± 11.51X103

pH of domestic sewage was recorded 8.68. recorded at 2 feet depth in 3:1 ratio of sand and soil Maximum decrease of 16.7% was recorded after mixture while minimum was found i.e. 0.9% in treatment with Sand intermittent filtration in the sand only at 1 feet depth. 0.9% reduction was mixture of sand and soil having ratio 1:1 and depth found in 100% sand at 1 feet depth but at the same of 2 feet while minimum was found i.e. 0.57% in time enhanced value was found at 2 feet depth of sand only at 1 feet depth. Total alkalinity of 100% soil i.e. 12.6%. It appears that depth of domestic sewage was recorded 423.33 mg/l. filtration bed was great impact on purification of Maximum reduction of Total alkalinity i.e. 37.9% wastewater as it is evident by table 2. Our was found at 2 feet depth in 3:1 ratio while conclusions are supported by Ellis (1987). He minimum was found i.e. 0.19% in sand only at 1 reported more than 65% reduction in BOD, when feet depth. Carbon dioxide of domestic sewage was effluent was allowed to filter from 3.5 feet depth of recorded 143.73 mg/l before filtration. Maximum sand filtration containing sand only of 0.3mm and decline of CO2 i.e. 83.4% was found at 2 feet depth then later 0.6mm in size. The variation from our in 3:1 ratio while minimum reduction was found findings may be due to variation in the component i.e. 0.7% in 1:1 ratio of sand and soil at 1 feet of filtration as in our case both sand and soil has depth. Since temperature decreases after Sand been used in proportion of the filter. Maximum Intermittent Filtration, the growth of percentage of BOD reduction may be due to along with decomposition of lowering of temperature, which minimizes the organic substances as well as the respiratory multiplication of microbial (bacterial) population activity also slows down, this reduces the by generating unfavorable temperature resulted carbondioxide level in the effluent. lowered uptake of oxygen and due to their retention in the bed. Chemical oxygen demand Dissolved oxygen of domestic sewage was found (COD) of domestic sewage was recorded 314.66 0.6 mg/l before filtration. Low oxygen mg/l. Maximum reduction of COD i.e. 69.9% was concentration is associated with heavy found at 2 feet depth in 3:1 ratio while minimum contamination by organic matter (Trivedy and was found i.e. 0.42% in 100% sand only at 1 feet Goel, 1995). Maximum increase in oxygen depth. Reduction of COD may be due to the fact concentration from 0.6 to 3.91 mg/l was recorded that most of the organic were oxidized. Van after treatment with Sand intermittent filtration at 2 Buuren et al. (1986) reported 76-82% removal of feet depth of ratio 3:1. Enhancement of dissolved COD in wastewater by using intermittent slow sand oxygen in the sewage after treatment may be due to filtration. Similar trends i.e. decrease in Chemical the minimization of organic pollution load and oxygen demand was also recorded by Rao et al. bacterial population due to their retention (organic (2003) when wastewater was filtered through slow pollutants and microbial population) in bed and sand filter. The SPC found in domestic sewage simultaneously mixing of atmospheric oxygen. . was 254.6X103 bacteria/ml. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of domestic sewage was recorded 183.83 mg/l. Maximum percentage of BOD reduction i.e. 72.5% was

G.PRASAD; RAJEEV RAJPUT; A.K.CHOPRA 89

TABLE 2: Pollution Reduction Potential of Sand-Soil bed at different ratios and depth of Sand Intermittent Filtration.

Parameters Sand/Soil=1:1 Sand/Soil=1:3 Sand/Soil=3:1 Sand 100% Soil 100%

1' 1.5' 2' 1' 1.5' 2' 1' 1.5' 2' 1' 1.5' 2' 1' 1.5' 2' Temperature 18.88 18.85 18.73 22.23 21.98 21.45 24.5 24.43 21.95 25.65 25.51 25.0 20 19.98 19.0 (oC) ±0.04 ±0.05 ±0.04 ±0.05 ±0.07 ±0.08 ±0.0 ±0.09 ±0.05 ±0.05 ±0.13 ±0.08 ±0.06 ±0.07 ±0.16 (-27.3) (-27.4) (-27.9) (-14.4) (-15.3) (-17.4) (-5.6) (-5.6) (-15.5) (-1.27) (-1.80) (-3.77) (-23.0) (-23.0) (-26.8) Turbidity 30 NIL NIL 79.16 NIL NIL 25±0.0 NIL NIL 27.5 25 NIL 85 NIL NIL (JTU) ±0.0 ±2.04 ±0.0 ±0.0 ±0.0 (-64.7) (-7.8) (-67.6) (-70.5) TS 1600 1193.33 480 1613.33 1093.33 966.66 1066.66 380 313.33 1833.33 1133.33 800 2200 1066.66 1016.66 (mg/l) ±326.5 ±27.48 ±73.02 ±32.65 ±20.65 ±30.11 ±188.56 ±20.0 ±27.48 ±179.5 ±94.28 ±0.0 ±219.08 ±206.5 ±93.09 (-41.6) (-56.4) (-82.4) (-41.1) (-60.0) (-64.7) (-61.0) (-86.1) (-88.5) (-33.0) (-58.6) (-70.8) (-19.7) (-61) (-62.8) TDS 960 680 280 1186.33 780 706.66 800 206.66 200 1000 640 620 1400 720 700 (mg/l) ±51.63 ±40.0 ±51.63 ±32.65 ±21.9 ±20.65 ±56.56 ±14.9 ±0.0 ±305.5 ±172.81 ±44.72 ±219.08 ±155.7 ±48.98 (-33.3) (-52.7) (-80.5) (-17.5) (-45.8) (-50.9) (-44.4) (-85.6) (-86.1) (-30.5) (-57.1) (-56.9) (-2.7) (-50) (-51.3) TSS 640 513.33 200 426.66 313.33 260 266.66 173.33 113.33 833.33 493.33 180 800 346.66 316.66 (mg/l) ±278.0 ±14.90 ±23.09 ±60.22 ±30.11 ±33.46 ±131.99 ±29.31 ±27.48 ±242.67 ±82.19 ±44.72 ±0.0 ±54.65 ±47.6 (-50.7) (-60.5) (-84.6) (-67.1) (-75.8) (-80) (-79.48) (-86.66) (-91.2) (-35.8) (-62.05) (-86.15) (-38.46) (-73.3) (-75.6) pH 8.61 7.48 7.23 8.6 7.86 7.58 8.55 8.08 8.01 8.63 8.25 7.98 8.58 7.85 8.58 ±0.27 ±0.04 ±0.04 ±0.08 ±0.05 ±0.04 ±0.05 ±0.08 ±0.13 ±0.05 ±0.05 ±0.06 ±0.11 ±0.05 ±0.11 (-0.80) (-13.8) (-16.7) (-0.92) (-9.4) (-12.6) (-1.49) (-6.9) (-7.7) (-0.57) (-4.9) (-8.0) (-1.15) (-9.5) (-1.15) TA 417.5 328.33 310 419.16 313.33 298.33 416.66 283.33 262.5 422.5 271.66 265 418.33 360 320 (mg/l) ±2.73 ±4.71 ±2.88 ±2.04 ±2.58 ±2.58 ±5.16 ±2.35 ±2.5 ±2.73 ±2.35 ±4.08 ±6.05 ±5.16 ±3.16 (-1.37) (22.4) (-26.7) (-19.8) (-25.9) (-29.5) (-1.57) (-33.0) (-37.9) (-0.19) (-35.8) (-37.4) (-1.18) (-14.95) (-24.4) CO2 142.63 37.4 24.2 96.8 33.73 29.7 86.9 29.7 23.83 81.4 32.63 24.2 93.13 37.03 28.6 (mg/l) ±1.51 ±1.27 ±1.96 ±1.96 ±1.13 ±1.20 ±1.1 ±2.76 ±2.66 ±2.54 ±2.34 ±3.81 ±1.13 ±2.16 ±1.39 (-0.7) (-73.9) (-83.1) (-32.6) (-76.5) (-79.3) (-39.5) (-79.3) (-83.4) (-43.36) (-77.2) (-83.1) (-35.2) (-74.23) (-80.10) DO 0.94 2.0 2.49 0.84 3. 0 3.07 1.14 2.9 3.91 0.63 1.11 1.48 1.14 2.97 3.03 (mg/l) ±0.52 ±0.0 ±0.10 ±0.39 ±0.08 ±0.0 ±0.52 ±0.27 ±0.16 ±0.08 ±0.10 ±0.16 ±0.52 ±0.10 ±0.12 (+56.66) (+233.3 (+315) (+40.0) (+400) (+411.6) (+90.0) (+383.3) (+551.6) (+5.0) (+85) (+146.6) (+90.0) (+395) (+405) 3) BOD 175.5 165.5 132.16 180.5 107.16 95.5 170.5 105.5 50.5 182.16 172.16 160.5 178.83 153.83 120.5 (mg/l) ±10.48 ±8.36 ±11.69 ±8.94 ±10.32 ±13.78 ±12.64 ±10.48 ±12.64 ±4.08 ±7.52 ±6.32 ±7.52 ±5.16 ±8.94 (-4.5) (-9.9) (-28.1) (-1.81) (-41.7) (-48.0) (-7.2) (-42.6) (-72.5) (-0.90) (-6.3) (-12.6) (-2.7) (-16.3) (-34.4) COD 312.66 232.66 182.66 311.33 170.66 134.0 307.33 129.33 94.66 313.33 298.66 258.33 309.33 201.33 151.33 (mg/l) ±3.93 ±4.67 ±4.84 ±5.88 ±3.26 ±5.51 ±3.01 ±4.84 ±3.26 ±4.84 ±3.26 ±4.13 ±3.26 ±2.06 ±8.16 (-0.6) (-26.0) (-41.9) (-1.05) (-45.7) (-57.4) (-2.3) (-58.8) (-69.9) (-0.42) (-5.08) (-9.3) (-1.6) (-36) (-51.9) MPN 33166.6 26000 18000 25333.3 21000 17500 13666.6 13166.6 8900 47666.6 35833.3 33833.3 28166.6 24666.6 11500 (MPN ±4490.7 ±3098.3 ±2000 ±2065.5 ±2449.4 ±547.72 ±2581.8 ±408.2 ±774.5 ±9811.5 ±9537.6 ±2857.7 ±4119 ±1632.9 ±1224.7 /100ml) (-34.7) (-48.8) (-64.5) (-50.1) (-58.6) (-65.5) (-73.1) (-74.0) (-82.4) (-6.2) (-29.5) (-33.4) (-44.5) (-51.4) (-77.3) SPC (X103 124.3 119 109.8 136 127 104.5 106.8 82.3 54.8 135 129.3 114.5 132 123.3 107.5 Bacteria/ml) ±4.4 ±12.0 ±12.2 ±38.8 ±22 ±20.5 ±10.2 ±10.7 ±10.2 ±10.2 ±8.3 ±8.6 ±10.1 ±15.3 ±11.9 (-51.1) (-53.2) (-56.8) (-46.5) (-50.1) (-58.9) (-58.0) (-67.6) (-78.4) (-46.9) (-49.2) (-55.03) (-48.1) (-51.5) (-57.7)

± = Standard Deviation, % Increase and Decrease given in parentheses ' = Feet

Corresponding Author: Prof. A.K.Chopra, E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: +91-01334-246366

Reduction of 82.4% was observed in the ratio 3:1 Huisman,L; Wood,W.E (1974). Slow sand filtration. having a depth of 2 feet while minimum was found Geneva: World health Organization. 20-46. i.e. 6.2% in sand only at 1 feet depth. Bacterial population decreases due to depletion of organic Kumar,A; Singhal,V; Joshi,B.D; Rai,J.P.N. (2003). Lysimetric approach for ground water pollution components, which serve as nutritive substances and control from pulp and paper mill effluent using due to fall in temperature, which does not support different soil textures. Ind. J. Sci. Ind. Res. 63, 429- bacterial multiplication. Bomo et al. (2003) were 438. found that Sand filters removed 99.9% of bacteria. Since a significant reduction in most of the Ojeda,P (1990). Treatment of turbid surface water for small parameters related with pollution load of sewage has community supplies. Dissertation Abstracts been recorded after passing through Sand Intermittent International. 51(3), 1471-B. Filtration, therefore it is desirable to investigate its ability under different conditions in order to make a Rajeswaramma,C; Kapil,Gupta (2002). Hydraulic design of a constructed for an . J. Wat. program to treat the sewage on overhead stabilization Works. Asso. 149-152. pond to protect under ground water reservoir and inland surface water. Rao,R.Ravinder; Reddy,R.C; Rama Rao, K.G; Kelkar,P.S (2003). Assessment of slow sand filtration system for Acknowledgement: Thanks are due to the , rural water supply schemes-A case study. Indian J. Department of Zoology and Environmental Sciences, Environ. Hlth. 45(1), 59-64. Gurukula Kangri University, Haridwar (UA), INDIA for providing necessary facilities for this research Rooklidge,S.J; Ketchum,Jr L.H (2002). Corrosion control work. enhancement from a dolomite-amended slow sand filter. Wat. Res. 36, 2689-2694.

REFRENCES Sarkar,A.K; Georgiou, G; Sharma,M.M (1994). Transport APHA. (1998). Standard Methods for the examination of of bacteria in porous media. I. An experiment water and wastewater. 14th Ed. Washington DC. investigation. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 44, 489-497.

Ausland,G; Stevik,T.K; Hanssen,J.F; Kohler,J.C; Stevik,T.K; Ausland,G; Jenssen,P.D; Siegrist,R.L (1999). Jenssen,P.D. (2002) Intermittent filtration of Removal of E. coli during intermittent filtration of wastewater-removal of fecal coliforms and fecal wastewater effluent as affected by dosing rate and Streptococci. Wat. Res. 36, 3507-3516. media type. Wat. Res. 33, 2088-2098.

Bellamy,W.D; Hendricks,D.W; Logsdon, G.S (1985). Slow Trivedy,R.K; Goel,P.K (1995). Chemical and biological sand filtration: influences of selected process methods for water pollution analysis studies. Environ. variables. J. Am. Water Well Assoc. 12, 62-66. Publications, Post box no. 60 Karad. 1-247.

Bomo, A.M; Husby, A; Stevik, T.K; Hanissen, J.F (2003). Van Buuren,J.C.L; Willers,H; Luyten,L; Van Manen, M Removal of fish in biological sand (1986). The removal from UASB-effluent by filters. Wat. Res. 37, 2618-2626. intermittent slow sand filtration. In: Anaerobic treatment a grown-up technology, conference papers. Campos, L. Cl; Su, M.F.J; Graham, N.J.D; Smith, S.R Aquatech. 86, 707-709. (2002) Biomass development in slow sand filters. Wat. Res. 36, 4543-4551. Weber–Shirk,M.L (2002). Enhancing slow sand filter performance with an acid-soluble seston extract. Wat. El-Taweel, G.E; Ali, G.H (2000). Evaluation of roughing Res. 36, 4753-4756. and slow sand filters for water treatment. Water Air Soil Pollu. 120(1-2), 21-28. Zibell,W.A; Anderson,J.L; Bouma,J; McCoy,E (1975). Fecal Bacteria: Removal from sewage by soil. Winter Ellis,K.V (1987). Slow sand filtration as a technique for the meeting, ASAE publication, Chicago, IL, paper no. tertiary treatment of municipal sewages. Wat. Res. 75-2579. 21(4), 403-410.

Corresponding Author: Prof. A.K.Chopra, E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: +91-01334-246366

Sand Intermittent Filtration Technology… 89

G.PRASAD; RAJEEV RAJPUT; A.K.CHOPRA 89 Sand Intermittent Filtration Technology… 90

G.PRASAD; RAJEEV RAJPUT; A.K.CHOPRA 90