All 2,645 cities by PM2.5, last 24 hours

Every city with enough measurements in this window, worst first.

CPCB in India: no readings since 12 Oct (488 monitors). EEA and Catalonia Medi Ambient I Sostenibilitat in Spain: no readings since 13 Oct (336 monitors). Their cities are missing from this board, not clean.

Hide the 1,153 cities with only 1–2 sensors

These cities have only one or two low-cost sensors, and one cheap unit can read well off, so they take no rank. They sit at their place by value, marked –, and every ranked city keeps its number.

=776HannōSaitama, Japan 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼186
=776AmagasakiHyōgo, Japan 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲293
=776ForchheimBavaria, Germany 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline
=776Dąbrowa GórniczaSilesia, Poland 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline
=776EvanstonIllinois, United States 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲165
=776Jurupa ValleyCalifornia, United States 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲324
=776Crescent CityCalifornia, United States 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲453
=776KagaIshikawa, Japan 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲552
=776UkihaFukuoka, Japan 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼361
not rankedEmpangeniKwaZulu-Natal, South Africa 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline
not rankedLichtenfelsBavaria, Germany 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline
not rankedLexingtonKentucky, United States 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline
not rankedColumbiaMaryland, United States 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline
=790Ubon RatchathaniUbon Ratchathani, Thailand 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼552
=790TokorozawaSaitama, Japan 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲50
=790SendaiKagoshima, Japan 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼174
=790InaNagano, Japan 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline
=790IchiharaChiba, Japan 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲298
=790BlackwaterQueensland, Australia 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲378
=790GrazStyria, Austria 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲221
=790RecklinghausenNorth Rhine-Westphalia, Germany 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼197
=790DěčínÚstí nad Labem Region, Czechia 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲146
=790České BudějoviceSouth Bohemian Region, Czechia 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲321
=790LubońGreater Poland, Poland 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline
=790ChalmetteLouisiana, United States 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲421
=790KennerLouisiana, United States 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲448
=790RockfordIllinois, United States 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲42
=790CantonOhio, United States 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲986
=790WarrenOhio, United States 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲1142
=790WaukeshaWisconsin, United States 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲153
=790Sunshine CoastQueensland, Australia 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼192
=790ShūnanYamaguchi, Japan 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼329
not rankedSremčicaCentral Serbia, Serbia 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline
not rankedLehLadakh, India 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline
not rankedOosterhoutNorth Brabant, The Netherlands 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline
not rankedObertshausenHesse, Germany 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline
not rankedKołoGreater Poland, Poland 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline
not rankedRapalloLiguria, Italy 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline
not rankedAuroraIllinois, United States 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline
=809TrangTrang, Thailand 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▼17
=809YokosukaKanagawa, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲123
=809SaseboNagasaki, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▼484
=809MieOita, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▼449
=809KagoshimaKagoshima, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▼53
=809HiratsukaKanagawa, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▼246
=809Natori-shiMiyagi, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▼67
=809LučenecBanská Bystrica Region, Slovakia 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲734
=809Ribeirão PretoSão Paulo, Brazil 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲184
=809McCordsvilleIndiana, United States 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲400
=809Lexington-FayetteKentucky, United States 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲5
=809Saint MatthewsKentucky, United States 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲21
=809NilesIllinois, United States 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline
=809SkokieIllinois, United States 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline
=809MedinaOhio, United States 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲661
=809Beaver FallsPennsylvania, United States 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲1124
=809GuelphOntario, Canada 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲27
=809KitchenerOntario, Canada 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲154
not rankedTroitskMoscow, Russia 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline
not rankedOstrów WielkopolskiGreater Poland, Poland 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline
=827TsukumiuraOita, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▼246
=827TondabayashichōOsaka, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲239
=827OnoFukui, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲219
=827MatsuyamaEhime, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline
=827WexfordLeinster, Ireland 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲1050
=827Ceglie MessapicaApulia, Italy 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲164
=827BraPiedmont, Italy 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▼292
=827ElizabethtownKentucky, United States 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲112
=827Cleveland HeightsOhio, United States 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲796
=827Blue IslandIllinois, United States 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline
=827JolietIllinois, United States 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲42
=827Michigan CityIndiana, United States 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline
=827AkishimaTokyo, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▼78
=827FuefukiYamanashi, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▼409
not rankedVerkhnyaya PyshmaSverdlovsk Oblast, Russia 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline
not rankedUsol’ye-SibirskoyeIrkutsk Oblast, Russia 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline
not rankedSanta RitaYoro Department, Honduras 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline
not rankedGreenburghNew York, United States 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline
=841VratsaVratsa, Bulgaria 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲713
=841WarsawMazovia, Poland 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲436
=841UrayasuChiba, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲49
=841SakaiOsaka, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline
=841NagaiYamagata, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▼420
=841ChibaChiba, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲248
=841MenenFlanders, Belgium 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲769
=841BayonneNew Aquitaine, France 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲550
=841Valašské MeziříčíZlín, Czechia 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▼177
=841HodonínSouth Moravian, Czechia 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲443
=841PłockMazovia, Poland 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲908
=841Gorzów WielkopolskiLubusz, Poland 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲1144
=841AthloneLeinster, Ireland 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲1641
=841Granite CityIllinois, United States 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▼367
=841PascagoulaMississippi, United States 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline
=841Evergreen ParkIllinois, United States 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline
=841LansingMichigan, United States 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲139
=841Port HuronMichigan, United States 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲85
=841HamiltonOntario, Canada 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲302
=841SmithersBritish Columbia, Canada 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲615
=841MotonaChiba, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲144
not rankedBrestBrest, Belarus 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline
not rankedTrstenikCentral Serbia, Serbia 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline

What stands behind each figure: Checked at 2+ sites One reference monitor Low-cost sensors 1–2 sensors, not ranked About these marks

Low-cost sensors: consumer units, counted only in cities with no government-grade monitor; they read close to reference monitors on the whole, but 15 to 25% high in humid air. How we use them.

Good0–50

Moderate51–100

Unhealthy for sensitive groups101–150

Unhealthy151–200

Very unhealthy201–300

Hazardous301+

The US EPA's Air Quality Index for PM2.5 (2024 breakpoints). Show values as: µg/m³ · US AQI · India AQI · China AQI · European AQI · UK DAQI · Canada AQHI+. About the scales

Not covered: the government monitoring networks of China, Turkey and Iran, which publish only on their own websites. We are building the reader for China's network. The networks of Turkey and Iran don't answer requests from outside their countries, so we can't read them. Most cities there are missing from this board, not clean. Why.

Use this board

SmogRank, all cities ranked by mean PM2.5 (µg/m³), last 24 hours to 14 Oct 2026, 05:00 UTC: each city's mean of its hourly values, cities measured in 18 or more of the 24 hours. Monitor data from national networks via OpenAQ and the publishers listed at smogrank.com/sources. smogrank.com/rankings. Ranked on low-cost sensors, with no reference monitor in the city: #1 Gaur, Madhesh, #2 Kuala Lumpur, #4 Multan, #5 Faisalabad, #6 Gujranwala, #7 Lilongwe, #8 Lahore, #9 Dhaka and #10 Bahawalpur. Some values from Sensor.Community, ODbL. Some readings from Vietnam's government monitors; Uzhydromet (Uzbekistan's Hydrometeorological Service); Department of Environment, Nepal; Aurassure; RMCAB (Secretaría Distrital de Ambiente, Bogotá); Umhverfisstofnun (Environment Agency of Iceland), no reuse terms published.

Download top 10 (PNG)

You're welcome to reuse a single chart, image or figure with this citation and a link. Terms. Raw monitor readings in bulk are published by OpenAQ, under each provider's licence.

Updated 2026-10-14 05:07 UTC. Values are PM2.5 (fine particles), the median of each city's monitors, as the US AQI PM2.5 sub-index. Some low-cost readings: Sensor.Community, ODbL (data and licence). Some readings: Vietnam's government monitors; Uzhydromet (Uzbekistan's Hydrometeorological Service); Department of Environment, Nepal; Aurassure; RMCAB (Secretaría Distrital de Ambiente, Bogotá); Umhverfisstofnun (Environment Agency of Iceland), no reuse terms published (why we use them).