People in several regions of the Rift Valley of Ethiopia are consuming water with fluoride up torn33 mg/L, which has resulted in both skeletal and non-skeletal fluorosis. Due to the unavailabilityrnof effective therapeutic measures, defluoridation of drinking water appears to be the best methodrnfor combating the disease. Several methods, using a variety of materials, have been suggestedrnfrom time to time. However, most of these methods have one or more short-comings with regardsrnto the defluoridation capacity, cost effectiveness, operational at community level and quality ofrntreated water. In view of this, search for more suitable material and method is still in progress.rnAmong tested and used method adsorption of fluoride by (activated) alumina is the most effectivernand widely used material. However, it is expensive to be applied particularly in developingrncountries like Ethiopia where the material is not available/ produced.rnIn the present study, aluminum hydroxide (or hydrated alumina) was prepared from locallyrnmanufactured aluminum sulfate and used for fluoride removal in batch and continuous operation.rnThe fluoride removal performance was investigated as a function of the contact time, amount ofrnadsorbent dose, thermal pretreatment of adsorbent, concentration of fluoride and pH in batchrnmode. The adsorption was rapid during the initial 20 min, but significant amount (> 90 %) wasrnremoved with in 1 h at an optimum adsorbent dose of 1.6 g/L for initial concentration of 20rnmg/L.The removal efficiency of fluoride was increased with adsorbent dosage. Samples of thernadsorbent were treated at a temperature range from 200 to 600 oC. An adsorbent treated at 300rn0C was selected for fluoride removal studies, in addition to the untreated adsorbent. The removalrnof fluoride from water depends on initial fluoride concentration. For a given adsorbent dose, thernadsorption of fluoride was rapid and efficient, but lower capacity for the more diluted solution.rnThe pH of the water affected the fluoride removal efficiencies of both untreated hydratedrnalumina (UHA) and treated hydrated alumina (THA), but defluoridation capacity wasrnviirnappreciable with in a pH range of 4.0 to 9.0, which suggests that hydrated alumina have greatrnpotential applications. The adsorption data at ambient pH were well fitted to the Freundlichrnisotherm model with a minimum capacity of 23.7 mg/g and 7.0 mg/g for THA and UHA,rnrespectively. The kinetic studies showed that the adsorption reaction of fluoride removal byrnhydrated alumina can be well described by a pseudo-second-order rate equation with anrnaverage rate constant of 6.60 x 10-3 g min-1mg-1 and 1.87 X 10-3 g min-1mg-1 for UHA and THA,rnrespectively. Filtration through THA in continuous column reduced the fluoride concentration inrnboth simulated as well as ground water. The sorption capacity of THA was 23.2 mg/g and 3.1rnmg/g at breakthrough fluoride concentration of 1.5 mg/L; and 38.7 mg/g and 7.1mg/g at point ofrnsaturation for simulated water and ground water, respectively. The capacity at breakthrough forrnsimulated water was comparable with the minimum fluoride adsorption capacity of 23.7 mg/grnobtained from batch experiment. Thus, the studied method can be operational at household asrnwell as small community level.rnKey Words: Fluoride, Batch defluoridation, Continuous Defluoridation, Hydrated alumina,rnFluoride removal efficiency, Adsorption capacity, Breakthrough