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.

=390KurashikiOkayama, Japan 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
=390NaesŏGyeongsangnam-do, South Korea 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲431
=390MiddletownOhio, United States 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲75
=390YeongamJeollanam-do, South Korea 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲674
not rankedDrăgăşaniVâlcea County, Romania 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
not rankedPakxanBolikhamsai, Laos 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
=398RadomMazovia, Poland 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲456
=398LublinLublin, Poland 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲686
=398OnomichiHiroshima, Japan 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▼14
=398Santa AnitaJalisco, Mexico 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲150
not rankedŁęcznaLublin, Poland 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
not rankedKönigstein im TaunusHesse, Germany 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
not rankedCassano d'AddaLombardy, Italy 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
not rankedSuboticaVojvodina, Serbia 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
not rankedTwinsburgOhio, United States 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
=402MurreePunjab, Pakistan 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▼348
=402NakatsuOita, Japan 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲76
=402Hradec KrálovéHradec Králové Region, Czechia 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲1998
=402FidenzaEmilia-Romagna, Italy 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▼71
=402WheelersburgOhio, United States 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲754
=402JōyōKyoto, Japan 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲718
=408BalfourMpumalanga, South Africa 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
=408Amnat CharoenAmnat Charoen, Thailand 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▼291
=408Mladá BoleslavCentral Bohemia, Czechia 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲809
=408DoltonIllinois, United States 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲336
=408HashimaGifu, Japan 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲371
not rankedeSikhaleniKwaZulu-Natal, South Africa 60 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
=413PinetownKwaZulu-Natal, South Africa 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▼307
=413MiddelburgMpumalanga, South Africa 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▼50
=413MokpoJeollanam-do, South Korea 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲1091
=413YawataKyoto, Japan 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲341
=413TsuMie, Japan 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲296
=413TajimiGifu, Japan 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲3
=413AsakaSaitama, Japan 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲76
=413OščadnicaŽilina Region, Slovakia 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲695
not rankedPetaẖ TiqvaCentral District, Israel 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
not rankedDiamniadioDakar, Senegal 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
not rankedEast MolineIllinois, United States 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
not rankedBan RatsadaPhuket, Thailand 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
not rankedShohamCentral District, Israel 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
=421Yangp'yŏngGyeonggi-do, South Korea 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▼40
=421GoseongGyeongsangnam-do, South Korea 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲762
=421HuntsvilleAlabama, United States 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲392
=421AthensGeorgia, United States 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲867
=421Candler-McAfeeGeorgia, United States 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲563
not rankedBinghamtonNew York, United States 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
=426YangguGangwon-do, South Korea 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
=426TakayamaGifu, Japan 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲451
=426KawaguchiSaitama, Japan 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲106
=426HamamatsuShizuoka, Japan 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
=426GyōdaSaitama, Japan 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▼75
=426ŽarnovicaBanská Bystrica Region, Slovakia 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲193
=426PřerovOlomouc Region, Czechia 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲825
=426Jelenia GóraLower Silesia, Poland 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲400
=426TurinPiedmont, Italy 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲241
=426SandersvilleGeorgia, United States 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲669
=426AmaAichi, Japan 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲310
not rankedChernogorskKhakasiya Republic, Russia 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
not rankedPfullingenBaden-Wurttemberg, Germany 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
not rankedBocholtNorth Rhine-Westphalia, Germany 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
not rankedŘíčanyCentral Bohemia, Czechia 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
not rankedCranberry TownshipPennsylvania, United States 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
=437UngsangGyeongsangnam-do, South Korea 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲292
=437León de los AldamaGuanajuato, Mexico 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▼68
=437QuesnelBritish Columbia, Canada 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲267
not rankedEsenyurtIstanbul, Turkey 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
=440ChinjuGyeongsangnam-do, South Korea 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲722
=440TenriNara, Japan 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲195
=440ShinshiroAichi, Japan 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▼203
=440YeosuJeollanam-do, South Korea 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲630
=440WłocławekKujawsko-Pomorskie, Poland 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲1025
=440BridgeviewIllinois, United States 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲484
not rankedRodnikiIvanovo Oblast, Russia 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
not rankedKalamariáCentral Macedonia, Greece 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
not rankedLebachSaarland, Germany 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
not rankedClarksvilleIndiana, United States 59 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
=446ChangwonGyeongsangnam-do, South Korea 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲468
=446TatebayashiGunma, Japan 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▼59
=446ShibukawaGunma, Japan 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▼88
=446HamakitaShizuoka, Japan 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▼73
=446FukuyamaHiroshima, Japan 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲60
=446PardubicePardubice Region, Czechia 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲709
=446ŁódźŁódź Voivodeship, Poland 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲357
=446TlaquepaqueJalisco, Mexico 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
=446PrichardAlabama, United States 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲81
not rankedCordovaTennessee, United States 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
=455TarnówLesser Poland, Poland 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲850
=455SuzukaMie, Japan 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲98
=455Kashihara-shiNara, Japan 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲436
=455San Pedro SulaCortés Department, Honduras 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲67
=455CorcoranCalifornia, United States 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▼85
not rankedStodůlkyPrague, Czechia 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
not rankedBeavercreekOhio, United States 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline
=460TalgharAlmaty Region, Kazakhstan 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▼384
=460SurinSurin, Thailand 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▼258
=460HwacheonGangwon-do, South Korea 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲279
=460YokkaichiMie, Japan 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲174
=460TamanoOkayama, Japan 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲264
=460OyamaTochigi, Japan 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲308
=460KukichūōSaitama, Japan 58 US AQI0.9 times the WHO guideline▲3

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).