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.

=316Nakhon NayokNakhon Nayok, Thailand 63 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲255
=316GuanshanTaiwan, Taiwan 63 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲493
not rankedBan Bang KadiPathum Thani, Thailand 63 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
=320KashiwaraNara, Japan 63 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲406
=320BytomSilesia, Poland 63 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
=320Pachuca de SotoHidalgo, Mexico 63 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲17
not rankedIrpinKyiv Oblast, Ukraine 63 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
not rankedLohr am MainBavaria, Germany 63 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
not rankedVelika GoricaZagreb County, Croatia 63 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
=323MukdahanMukdahan, Thailand 63 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▼230
=323MuanJeollanam-do, South Korea 63 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲217
=323ChuncheonGangwon-do, South Korea 63 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲195
=326JarosławSubcarpathia, Poland 63 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲425
=326Buri RamBuriram, Thailand 63 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▼232
=326ChangnyeongGyeongsangnam-do, South Korea 63 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲223
=329Kamphaeng PhetKamphaeng Phet, Thailand 63 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▼8
=329NamyangjuGyeonggi-do, South Korea 63 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▼62
=329KoprivnicaKoprivnica-Križevci, Croatia 63 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲69
not rankedWyszkówMazovia, Poland 63 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
=332SintansinDaejeon, South Korea 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲2
=332SantyokuGangwon-do, South Korea 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲70
=332BusanBusan, South Korea 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲733
=332MasanGwangju, South Korea 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲486
=332Koch'angJeollabuk-do, South Korea 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▼101
=332TallahasseeFlorida, United States 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
not rankedKolomnaMoscow Oblast, Russia 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
=338YeonilGyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲276
=338KuryeJeollanam-do, South Korea 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
=338GangneungGangwon-do, South Korea 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲139
=338SekimachiGifu, Japan 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲265
not rankedKikuyuKiambu County, Kenya 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
not rankedRibarroja del TuriaValencia, Spain 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
=342RzeszówSubcarpathia, Poland 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲532
=342SuwonGyeonggi-do, South Korea 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▼181
=342PohangGyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲283
=342GijangBusan, South Korea 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲702
=342ZgierzŁódź Voivodeship, Poland 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲470
=347Gornji MilanovacCentral Serbia, Serbia 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲30
=347HwasunJeollanam-do, South Korea 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲738
=349PyeongchangGangwon-do, South Korea 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲310
=349GwangjuGyeonggi-do, South Korea 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲16
=349PueblaPuebla, Mexico 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲50
=349MontgomeryAlabama, United States 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲61
not rankedCaerphillyWales, United Kingdom 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
not rankedVilla de San AntonioComayagua Department, Honduras 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
not rankedOswegoNew York, United States 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
not rankedEastonPennsylvania, United States 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
not rankedPalmerstonNorthern Territory, Australia 62 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
=353YangsanGyeongsangnam-do, South Korea 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲164
=353GwangjuGwangju, South Korea 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲370
=353AnseongGyeonggi-do, South Korea 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▼51
=353TřinecMoravian-Silesian Region, Czechia 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲223
not rankedKomárnoNitra Region, Slovakia 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
=357UlsanUlsan, South Korea 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲395
=357Bucheon-siGyeonggi-do, South Korea 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▼247
=357KwangyangJeollanam-do, South Korea 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲223
=357Cheongsong gunGyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲396
=357InuyamaAichi, Japan 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲124
=357HanamGyeonggi-do, South Korea 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▼167
=357ZagrebZagreb, Croatia 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲102
=357Mixquiahuala de JuárezHidalgo, Mexico 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
=357Warner RobinsGeorgia, United States 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲834
not rankedPretoriaGauteng, South Africa 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
not rankedQuickbornSchleswig-Holstein, Germany 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
not rankedHavlíčkův BrodVysocina, Czechia 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
not rankedCaxias do SulRio Grande do Sul, Brazil 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
=366GyeongjuGyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲1001
=366HayashimaOkayama, Japan 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
=366HwadoGyeonggi-do, South Korea 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▼186
=366FreetownWestern Area, Sierra Leone 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▼89
=366NiizaSaitama, Japan 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲142
not rankedChristiansburgVirginia, United States 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
not rankedMarkhamOntario, Canada 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
=371Roi EtRoi Et, Thailand 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▼302
=371Bang PakongChachoengsao, Thailand 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▼306
=371NeietsuGangwon-do, South Korea 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▲647
not rankedMaumelleArkansas, United States 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
not rankedHenriettaNew York, United States 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
=374CheonanChungcheongnam-do, South Korea 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▼73
=374IseMie, Japan 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline▼39
not rankedNicosiaNicosia, Cyprus 61 US AQI1.0 times the WHO guideline
=376GyumriShirak, Armenia 61 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲194
=376MielecSubcarpathia, Poland 61 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲930
=376Uijeongbu-siGyeonggi-do, South Korea 61 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▼219
=376Goyang-siGyeonggi-do, South Korea 61 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▼312
=376BeppuOita, Japan 61 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲60
=376KarvináMoravian-Silesian Region, Czechia 61 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲613
=382TaharaAichi, Japan 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▼294
=382KakamigaharaGifu, Japan 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲45
=382Kashima-shiIbaraki, Japan 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
=382HagiYamaguchi, Japan 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲345
=382GifuGifu, Japan 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲209
=382GwangyangJeollanam-do, South Korea 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲537
=382BochumNorth Rhine-Westphalia, Germany 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲25
=382RužomberokŽilina Region, Slovakia 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲101
not rankedNiddaHesse, Germany 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
=390TetovoTetovo, North Macedonia 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲160
=390KimhaeGyeongsangnam-do, South Korea 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲844
=390Hwaseong-siGyeonggi-do, South Korea 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▼320
=390HongseongChungcheongnam-do, South Korea 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▼144

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).