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.

not rankedGinsheim-GustavsburgHesse, Germany 67 US AQI1.2 times the WHO guideline
=241PhichitPhichit, Thailand 67 US AQI1.2 times the WHO guideline▲191
=241Lop BuriLopburi, Thailand 67 US AQI1.2 times the WHO guideline▼73
=241OpoleOpole Voivodeship, Poland 67 US AQI1.2 times the WHO guideline▲156
=241GuaratinguetáSão Paulo, Brazil 67 US AQI1.2 times the WHO guideline▲208
=241JeongeupJeollabuk-do, South Korea 67 US AQI1.2 times the WHO guideline▼91
=246Udon ThaniUdon Thani, Thailand 66 US AQI1.2 times the WHO guideline▼159
=246OsanGyeonggi-do, South Korea 66 US AQI1.2 times the WHO guideline▼121
=248PhetchabunPhetchabun, Thailand 66 US AQI1.2 times the WHO guideline▲31
=248Ban Talat BuengChon Buri, Thailand 66 US AQI1.2 times the WHO guideline▲105
=248BoryeongChungcheongnam-do, South Korea 66 US AQI1.2 times the WHO guideline▲76
=248UžiceCentral Serbia, Serbia 66 US AQI1.2 times the WHO guideline▲56
=252HetaudaBagmati Province, Nepal 66 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲21
=252HaenamJeollanam-do, South Korea 66 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
=254Ganghwa-gunIncheon, South Korea 66 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▼136
=254HayangGyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea 66 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲347
=254AshaimanGreater Accra, Ghana 66 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▼71
=254Yongsan-dongSeoul, South Korea 66 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▼139
=254IgaMie, Japan 66 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲584
=259SeoulSeoul, South Korea 66 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▼140
=259GongjuChungcheongnam-do, South Korea 66 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲123
=259IncheonIncheon, South Korea 66 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▼188
=259ValdostaGeorgia, United States 66 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲394
=259ChattanoogaTennessee, United States 66 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲243
not rankedIvano-FrankivskIvano-Frankivsk, Ukraine 66 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
not rankedPirotCentral Serbia, Serbia 66 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
not rankedChebarkul’Chelyabinsk, Russia 66 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
not rankedSão Pedro da CovaPorto, Portugal 66 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
not rankedCzęstochowaSilesia, Poland 66 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
=264EvatonGauteng, South Africa 66 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲36
=264Ruda ŚląskaSilesia, Poland 66 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
=264BirendranagarKarnali Pradesh, Nepal 66 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲18
not rankedBang Bua ThongNonthaburi, Thailand 66 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
267Guri-siGyeonggi-do, South Korea 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▼164
not rankedVang ViengVientiane, Laos 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
not rankedVandaliaOhio, United States 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
=268Tarnowskie GórySilesia, Poland 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
=268PrijedorSrpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲192
=268HadongGyeongsangnam-do, South Korea 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲454
not rankedPabianiceŁódź Voivodeship, Poland 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
=271NišCentral Serbia, Serbia 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲746
=271eMbalenhleMpumalanga, South Africa 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▼175
=271BuyeoChungcheongnam-do, South Korea 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲308
=271TongyeongGyeongsangnam-do, South Korea 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲376
=271GuadalajaraJalisco, Mexico 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▼8
not rankedAshkelonSouthern District, Israel 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
=276YeonggwangJeollanam-do, South Korea 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▼34
=276SuncheonJeollanam-do, South Korea 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲170
=276Gimpo-siGyeonggi-do, South Korea 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▼223
=276IksanJeollabuk-do, South Korea 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▼37
=276Ansan-siGyeonggi-do, South Korea 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▼215
not rankedMagentaLombardy, Italy 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
=281BakuBaki, Azerbaijan 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▼17
=281Nong Bua LamphuNong Bua Lamphu, Thailand 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▼176
=281WŏnjuGangwon-do, South Korea 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▼15
=281Icheon-siGyeonggi-do, South Korea 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▼107
=281SinhyeonGyeongsangnam-do, South Korea 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲846
=281Donghae CityGangwon-do, South Korea 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲111
=281Ciudad ApodacaNuevo León, Mexico 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
not rankedAburiEastern, Ghana 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
not rankedRybnikSilesia, Poland 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
not rankedSimpsonvilleSouth Carolina, United States 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
not rankedStowOhio, United States 65 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
288HengchunTaiwan, Taiwan 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
not rankedSi RachaChon Buri, Thailand 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
not rankedSosnowiecSilesia, Poland 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
=289Chiang MaiChiang Mai, Thailand 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲134
=289Maha SarakhamMaha Sarakham, Thailand 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▼211
=289GunsanJeollabuk-do, South Korea 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▼44
=289KatowiceSilesia, Poland 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲105
=289Bijelo PoljeBijelo Polje, Montenegro 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲67
=289BoseongJeollanam-do, South Korea 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲1007
=295NajuJeollanam-do, South Korea 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲384
=295NabariMie, Japan 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲621
=295TijuanaBaja California, Mexico 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲300
=295GeojeGyeongsangnam-do, South Korea 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲947
not rankedGevelsbergNorth Rhine-Westphalia, Germany 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
not rankedOlkuszLesser Poland, Poland 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
=299AlmatyAlmaty, Kazakhstan 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▼50
=299KunwiGyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲556
=299AndongGyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲616
=299Laem ChabangChon Buri, Thailand 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲49
=299CieszynSilesia, Poland 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲528
not rankedVácPest County, Hungary 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
not rankedJičínHradec Králové Region, Czechia 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
=304PhuntsholingChukha, Bhutan 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲18
=304SokchoGangwon-do, South Korea 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲107
=304MunsanGyeonggi-do, South Korea 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
=304Anyang-siGyeonggi-do, South Korea 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▼178
=304Duque de CaxiasRio de Janeiro, Brazil 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲651
=304AtlantaGeorgia, United States 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲671
=304MatsusakaMie, Japan 64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲148
not rankedMysłowiceSilesia, Poland no daily values yet64 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
=311Baia MareMaramureş, Romania 63 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲219
=311LvivLviv, Ukraine 63 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline
=311KalasinKalasin, Thailand 63 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▼238
=311Bueng KanBueng Kan, Thailand 63 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲29
=311AlbanyGeorgia, United States 63 US AQI1.1 times the WHO guideline▲359
=316ZamośćLublin, Poland 63 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲475
=316PokharaGandaki Pradesh, Nepal 63 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲17

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).