Function of uptake Tube in Sponge Filter?

[Yassmeena]

Hi all,

I recently set up a sponge filter, but the uptake tube didn't fit (too big) so I couldn't attach it.

What is it's function? I hope my setup will still be ok?

Yasmin

[rickztahone]

Hi all,

I recently set up a sponge filter, but the uptake tube didn't fit (too big) so I couldn't attach it.

What is it's function? I hope my setup will still be ok?

Yasmin

i've ran mine without one and i know many on here have as well. it's not a problem at all.

[jaykne]

I have never used and uptake tube and the filters work just fine without.

[ShinShin]

The uptake tube should draw more water up through the sponge to replace the water bubbles displace. The longer the tube the more water that is displaced causing more water to be drawn up through the sponge at a given time, thus exposing more ammonia and nitrite to to the nitrfying bacteria colonized on the sponge making it more efficient.

Some argue the tube isn't necessary. Maybe not. The tube ought to make the filter more effective, though, requiring a smaller sponge. Most people use a filter larger than recommended.

If the makers of sponge filters felt the tube useless, why would they spend the money adding one? Even the small cost of the tube would save the manufacturer a sum of money when one looks at all that is involved including shipping the raw tubing from the tube manufacturer, wharehousing, labor, etc. times the sheer numbers of sponge filters they make.

Personally, I use them. Why wouldn't I?

Mat

[gotfish?]

The uptake tube should draw more water up through the sponge to replace the water bubbles displace. The longer the tube the more water that is displaced causing more water to be drawn up through the sponge at a given time, thus exposing more ammonia and nitrite to to the nitrfying bacteria colonized on the sponge making it more efficient.

Some argue the tube isn't necessary. Maybe not. The tube ought to make the filter more effective, though, requiring a smaller sponge. Most people use a filter larger than recommended.

If the makers of sponge filters felt the tube useless, why would they spend the money adding one? Even the small cost of the tube would save the manufacturer a sum of money when one looks at all that is involved including shipping the raw tubing from the tube manufacturer, wharehousing, labor, etc. times the sheer numbers of sponge filters they make.

Personally, I use them. Why wouldn't I?

Mat

i totally agree with this. i also find that my sponges have collected more debri when the tube is attached IME

[Ardan]

I totally agree with Mats statement and explanation. I use the uptake tubes also.


Ardan

[Jhhnn]

I used the tubes at first w/ my ATI sponges. As sub-adults, my blue scorps would sometimes spook en masse, bolt explosively, and get scraped on the sharp tube ends. They don't navigate at all in the initial jump, they just go, willy-nilly, in every direction, oblivious of anything in the way. I sanded the ends, which helped, but didn't solve the problem entirely. I finally took the tubes off, haven't looked back.

Theoretically, I'm sure, the tubes help the bubble column pull more water thru the sponges, but the real world efficacy seems just fine w/o 'em. I use small airstones under the bullseyes, also an extra riser between the sponge and the base to make it easier to siphon crud away... Both Jehmco and Kensfish carry the risers, iirc...

My fish will still bolt like that, once in awhile, particularly at feeding time. Being at the surface seems to make 'em jumpy. I cringe when I see pics of tanks with sharp pointy tangles of wood within. It looks nice, but I don't think it's good for the fish, at all.

[Ed13]

The uptake tube should draw more water up through the sponge to replace the water bubbles displace. The longer the tube the more water that is displaced causing more water to be drawn up through the sponge at a given time, thus exposing more ammonia and nitrite to to the nitrfying bacteria colonized on the sponge making it more efficient.

Some argue the tube isn't necessary. Maybe not. The tube ought to make the filter more effective, though, requiring a smaller sponge. Most people use a filter larger than recommended.

If the makers of sponge filters felt the tube useless, why would they spend the money adding one? Even the small cost of the tube would save the manufacturer a sum of money when one looks at all that is involved including shipping the raw tubing from the tube manufacturer, wharehousing, labor, etc. times the sheer numbers of sponge filters they make.

Personally, I use them. Why wouldn't I?

Mat


i totally agree with this. i also find that my sponges have collected more debri when the tube is attached IME
I totally agree with both these statements. Only time I might run it without is in small tanks like 20g and even then I might just shorten the intake tube. Yes you can cut it, and yes the height does change the performance of it.

[ShinShin]

Yes, they will collect more debris with the tube. Sponge filters work by the same principle as the old box filters in that they pull water into the container, the sponge being the container here. Bacteria would form on the floss acting as a biological filter, although they are really mechanical filters designed to trap particulate particles. The floss is tossed in a week and new bacteria must form making it very ineffective as a biological filter. We simply rinse our sponges, leaving most of the bacteria.

Jhhnn's method is a good substitute for the tube. Without one or the other, water passes through the filter at a slower rate, and mostly on the outer portion of the sponge, with the inside pores not being properly colonized requiring a large sponge because it is not being as effeftive.

Mat

[Dkarc@Aol.com]

The tube is a very basic airlift pump mechanism, as described above. It does create a gentle draw of water through the tube as the air bubbles rise. However due to it's design, the amount of water drawn through the tube becomes greatly decreased as the filter works/ages. It is a very slow active form of biological filtration (water is passed through media the bacteria is attatched to via the draw of the airlift).

Those who run sponge filters without tubes experience biological filtration in a passive way (minimal measureable flow through media). The outer layer of the sponge is very active in nitrifier's, while the inner layers some argue contain lesser amounts of nitrifying bacteria and more heterotrophic bacteria due to low/no flow of water reaching the inner areas. Those who run a sponge filter without an airtube may notice that they dont "filter" out nearly as much solid waste (food, feces, etc) that is in the tank. When they go to clean the sponge filter, what they are seeing as dirty water is not necessarily solid waste filtered out of the water, but rather the biofilm (biofloc) of heterotrophic bacteria.

This also gives reason why your fish seem to do better right after you clean their sponge filter...the heterotrophic bacteria that are active in breaking down organic material in the tank are reduced in numbers, there by reducing NH4+/NO2 levels (minute amounts granted) that are produced. These heterotrophic bacteria also directly compete with your nitrifying bacteria and fish for oxygen in the tank. Since they can grow in numbers MUCH faster than nitrifying bacteria can, they can have a significant effect of dissolved oxygen levels in your tank....which is in itself a major stressor to the fish. As we all know, stress = disease.

JMPO

-Ryan

[tdiscusman]

I've seen some pictures and videos and notice that some people do not use lift tube on their sponge filter, and for the life of me can't understand why. Isn't this fluid dynamic 101 :-)? Even the LFS owner, where I bought the filter from, surprise when I asked for the lift tube, he said no one ask for them and they'll work just fine without it. LOL.

Tony