SmogRank / Rankings

All 2,540 cities by PM2.5, last 24 hours

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

CPCB in India: no readings since 7 Oct (488 monitors). EEA in Spain: no readings since 10 Oct (310 monitors). Catalonia Medi Ambient I Sostenibilitat in Spain: no readings since 9 Oct (26 monitors). Their cities are missing from this board, not clean.

  1. 1885GdańskPomerania, Poland 210.3×▼870
  2. 1885LaivesTrentino-Alto Adige, Italy 210.3×▼488
  3. 1885CayenneGuyane, French Guiana 210.3×▼4
  4. 1885ChesapeakeVirginia, United States 210.3×▼506
  5. 1885West MifflinPennsylvania, United States 210.3×▲317
  6. 1885AlpineCalifornia, United States 210.3×▼238
  7. 1885VictorvilleCalifornia, United States 210.3×▼594
  8. 1885West JordanUtah, United States 210.3×▲126
  9. 1885RidgefieldWashington, United States 210.3×▼60
  10. 1885SunnysideWashington, United States 210.3×▼104
  11. 1885BécancourQuebec, Canada 210.3×▼299
  12. 1885CranbrookBritish Columbia, Canada 210.3×▼453
  13. 1885PeterboroughOntario, Canada 210.3×▲88
  14. 1885Sault Ste. MarieOntario, Canada 210.3×▼500
  15. 1885High PeakEngland, United Kingdom 210.3×▼27
  16. 1916Volgogradlow-cost sensorsVolgograd Oblast, Russia 210.2×
  17. 1916LeicesterEngland, United Kingdom 210.2×▼253
  18. 1916BrightlingseaEngland, United Kingdom 210.2×▲137
  19. 1916BlackpoolEngland, United Kingdom 210.2×▼727
  20. 1916BaselBasel-City, Switzerland 210.2×▼53
  21. 1916WieslochBaden-Wurttemberg, Germany 210.2×▼82
  22. 1916PforzheimBaden-Wurttemberg, Germany 210.2×▼474
  23. 1916NeubrandenburgMecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany 210.2×▼244
  24. 1916WexfordLeinster, Ireland 210.2×▼708
  25. 1916Dún LaoghaireLeinster, Ireland 210.2×▼6
  26. 1916Žiar nad HronomBanská Bystrica Region, Slovakia 210.2×▼319
  27. 1916SenecBratislava Region, Slovakia 210.2×▼155
  28. 1916Zielona GóraLubusz, Poland 210.2×▼192
  29. 1916PtujUrban Municipality of Ptuj, Slovenia 210.2×▼591
  30. 1916GarðabærCapital Region, Iceland 210.2×▲410
  31. 1916Santo AndréSão Paulo, Brazil 210.2×▼913
  32. 1916McDonoughGeorgia, United States 210.2×▲458
  33. 1916GreenvilleSouth Carolina, United States 210.2×▲227
  34. 1916HelotesTexas, United States 210.2×▼718
  35. 1916CloquetMinnesota, United States 210.2×
  36. 1916DuluthMinnesota, United States 210.2×
  37. 1916LancasterPennsylvania, United States 210.2×▼581
  38. 1916GlendaleArizona, United States 210.2×▼27
  39. 1916OjaiCalifornia, United States 210.2×▼403
  40. 1916LubbockTexas, United States 210.2×▼428
  41. 1916AlbanyOregon, United States 210.2×▼94
  42. 1916StaytonOregon, United States 210.2×▼485
  43. 1916Port CoquitlamBritish Columbia, Canada 210.2×▲16
  44. 1916St. AlbertAlberta, Canada 210.2×▲17
  45. 1916VictoriaBritish Columbia, Canada 210.2×▲162
  46. 1916Val-de-ReuilNormandy, France 210.2×▲20
  47. 1916La Crescenta-Montroselow-cost sensorsCalifornia, United States 210.2×▼820
  48. 1948Tolyattilow-cost sensorsSamara Oblast, Russia 200.2×
  49. 1948Veliko Tŭrnovolow-cost sensorsVeliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria 200.2×▼878
  50. 1948VelesVeles, North Macedonia 200.2×▼481
  51. 1948LavertonVictoria, Australia 200.2×▲28
  52. 1948GroningenGroningen, The Netherlands 200.2×▲259
  53. 1948LienzTyrol, Austria 200.2×▼239
  54. 1948GingelomFlanders, Belgium 200.2×▼235
  55. 1948Frankfurt (Oder)Brandenburg, Germany 200.2×▼316
  56. 1948Brandenburg an der HavelBrandenburg, Germany 200.2×▼42
  57. 1948ValenceAuvergne-Rhône-Alpes, France 200.2×▲7
  58. 1948Saint-ChamondAuvergne-Rhône-Alpes, France 200.2×▲285
  59. 1948NîmesOccitanie, France 200.2×▲183
  60. 1948ÉtampesÎle-de-France, France 200.2×▲245
  61. 1948ChâteaurouxCentre-Val de Loire, France 200.2×▼532
  62. 1948ArlesProvence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, France 200.2×▲48
  63. 1948GdyniaPomerania, Poland 200.2×▼1203
  64. 1948Parmalow-cost sensorsEmilia-Romagna, Italy 200.2×
  65. 1948AshevilleNorth Carolina, United States 200.2×
  66. 1948EriePennsylvania, United States 200.2×▲310
  67. 1948WilkinsburgPennsylvania, United States 200.2×▲154
  68. 1948PawtucketRhode Island, United States 200.2×▼1133
  69. 1948El CentroCalifornia, United States 200.2×
  70. 1948Brightonlow-cost sensorsColorado, United States 200.2×
  71. 1948Lakewoodlow-cost sensorsColorado, United States 200.2×
  72. 1948Las CrucesNew Mexico, United States 200.2×▼518
  73. 1948LongmontColorado, United States 200.2×▼434
  74. 1948LockwoodMontana, United States 200.2×▲59
  75. 1948PierreSouth Dakota, United States 200.2×▼1293
  76. 1948MillcreekUtah, United States 200.2×▲61
  77. 1948AberdeenWashington, United States 200.2×▲22
  78. 1978Gorna Oryahovitsalow-cost sensorsVeliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria 190.2×▼616
  79. 1978Gabrovolow-cost sensorsGabrovo, Bulgaria 190.2×▼829
  80. 1978Saint-DenisReunion, Reunion 190.2×▼119
  81. 1978GlasgowScotland, United Kingdom 190.2×▲39
  82. 1978Burton upon TrentEngland, United Kingdom 190.2×
  83. 1978SteyrUpper Austria, Austria 190.2×▲7
  84. 1978GlashüttenHesse, Germany 190.2×▲312
  85. 1978FriedrichshafenBaden-Wurttemberg, Germany 190.2×▲46
  86. 1978DundalkLeinster, Ireland 190.2×▼411
  87. 1978DroghedaLeinster, Ireland 190.2×▼26
  88. 1978Mont-de-MarsanNew Aquitaine, France 190.2×▼22
  89. 1978MetzGrand Est, France 190.2×▼21
  90. 1978BloisCentre-Val de Loire, France 190.2×▼561
  91. 1978PilsenPlzeň Region, Czechia 190.2×▲216
  92. 1978FayettevilleNorth Carolina, United States 190.2×▼335
  93. 1978BeltonTexas, United States 190.2×▼691
  94. 1978Beaver FallsPennsylvania, United States 190.2×▲259
  95. 1978CanonsburgPennsylvania, United States 190.2×▲167
  96. 1978PittsburghPennsylvania, United States 190.2×▲199
  97. 1978Los Banoslow-cost sensorsCalifornia, United States 190.2×▼202
  98. 1978MedfordOregon, United States 190.2×▲70
  99. 1978SalemOregon, United States 190.2×▼198
  100. 1978PalmerAlaska, United States 190.2×▲375

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
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 and Turkey, which publish only on their own websites. We are building the reader for China's network. Turkey's network doesn't answer requests from outside the country, so we can't read it. 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 13 Oct 2026, 01:00 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 Queenstown Estate, #3 Gaur, Madhesh, #5 Dubai, #6 Dhaka, #7 Multan, #8 Faisalabad, #9 Gujranwala and #10 Vientiane. Some values from Sensor.Community, ODbL. Some readings from Uzhydromet (Uzbekistan's Hydrometeorological Service); Vietnam's government monitors; Department of Environment, Nepal; Aurassure; RMCAB (Secretaría Distrital de Ambiente, Bogotá); Umhverfisstofnun (Environment Agency of Iceland); Love My Air (City and County of Denver), 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 2026-10-13 01:07 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: Uzhydromet (Uzbekistan's Hydrometeorological Service); Vietnam's government monitors; Department of Environment, Nepal; Aurassure; RMCAB (Secretaría Distrital de Ambiente, Bogotá); Umhverfisstofnun (Environment Agency of Iceland); Love My Air (City and County of Denver), no reuse terms published (why we use them).