All 3,198 cities by PM2.5, this year

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 show older figures or are missing from this board, not clean.

=501RevúcaBanská Bystrica Region, Slovakia 65 US AQI3.3 times the WHO guideline
=501ErlunTaiwan, Taiwan 65 US AQI3.3 times the WHO guideline▼16
=501PohangGyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea 65 US AQI3.3 times the WHO guideline▼24
=501HayangGyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea 65 US AQI3.3 times the WHO guideline▼20
=501PoznańGreater Poland, Poland 65 US AQI3.3 times the WHO guideline▼76
=506GwangjuGyeonggi-do, South Korea 65 US AQI3.3 times the WHO guideline▼18
=506Santiago de Querétarolast full day 11 OctQuerétaro, Mexico 65 US AQI3.3 times the WHO guideline▲20
=506Irapuatolast full day 11 OctGuanajuato, Mexico 65 US AQI3.3 times the WHO guideline▼19
=509Craiovalast full day 10 OctDolj, Romania 64 US AQI3.3 times the WHO guideline▼41
=509Kwai ChungKwai Tsing District, Hong Kong 64 US AQI3.3 times the WHO guideline▼16
=509MortaraLombardy, Italy 64 US AQI3.3 times the WHO guideline
=509CalamaAntofagasta, Chile 64 US AQI3.3 times the WHO guideline▼6
=509Ciudad Benito JuárezNuevo León, Mexico 64 US AQI3.3 times the WHO guideline▼23
=514BeirutBeirut, Lebanon 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▼23
=514YuanlinTaiwan, Taiwan 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▼18
=514San Tung Chung HangIslands, Hong Kong 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▼17
=514Mong KokYau Tsim Mong District, Hong Kong 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▼22
=514Gapyeonglast full day 30 SeptGyeonggi-do, South Korea 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▼20
=514NamyangjuGyeonggi-do, South Korea 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▼16
=514Salamancalast full day 11 OctGuanajuato, Mexico 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▼24
=521LegionowoMazovia, Poland 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▼62
=521PodgoricaPodgorica, Montenegro 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▼22
=523JarosławSubcarpathia, Poland 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▼99
=523MokpoJeollanam-do, South Korea 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▼22
=523TongyeongGyeongsangnam-do, South Korea 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▼21
=523OlomoucOlomouc Region, Czechia 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline
=527KazincbarcikaBorsod-Abaúj-Zemplén, Hungary 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▼45
=527HumennéPrešov Region, Slovakia 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▲200
=527Nakhon NayokNakhon Nayok, Thailand 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▼21
=527Tai PoTai Po, Hong Kong 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▼15
=527EisenGyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▼20
=527SintansinDaejeon, South Korea 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▼19
=527JungpyongNorth Chungcheong, South Korea 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▼18
=527ŠahyNitra Region, Slovakia 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline
=527PřerovOlomouc Region, Czechia 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline
=527Peschiera del GardaVeneto, Italy 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline
=527KutinaSisak-Moslavina, Croatia 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline
=527Tehuacánlast full day 7 OctPuebla, Mexico 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▼16
=527León de los AldamaGuanajuato, Mexico 64 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▼32
=540Sau Mau PingKwun Tong District, Hong Kong 63 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▼27
=540GimcheonGyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea 63 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▼25
=540Seongnam-siGyeonggi-do, South Korea 63 US AQI3.2 times the WHO guideline▼24
=543YeongdongNorth Chungcheong, South Korea 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼29
=543AndongGyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼23
=543PúchovTrenčín Region, Slovakia 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline
=543Alto Hospiciolast full day 11 OctTarapacá, Chile 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼22
=547NonsanChungcheongnam-do, South Korea 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼25
=547JeonjuJeollabuk-do, South Korea 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼24
=547ZiguinchorZiguinchor, Senegal 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼17
=547LučenecBanská Bystrica Region, Slovakia 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline
=547StudénkaMoravian-Silesian Region, Czechia 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline
=552TrebišovKošice Region, Slovakia 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline
=552KošiceKošice Region, Slovakia 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▲186
=552LublinLublin, Poland 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼89
=552BeigangTaiwan, Taiwan 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼21
=552ZhushanTaiwan, Taiwan 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼19
=552Chiayi CityTaiwan, Taiwan 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼18
=552Koch'angJeollabuk-do, South Korea 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼24
=552Donghae CityGangwon-do, South Korea 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼23
=552ŽarnovicaBanská Bystrica Region, Slovakia 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline
=552TřinecMoravian-Silesian Region, Czechia 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline
=552BraPiedmont, Italy 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline
=552Ciudad ApodacaNuevo León, Mexico 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼13
=564TarnówLesser Poland, Poland 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼166
=564PołaniecŚwiętokrzyskie, Poland 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼106
=564ThiruvananthapuramKerala, India 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼45
=564DurgChhattisgarh, India 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼23
=564KaohsiungTakao, Taiwan 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼32
=564Yangp'yŏngGyeonggi-do, South Korea 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼29
=564NangenJeollabuk-do, South Korea 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼28
=564Pachuca de SotoHidalgo, Mexico 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼64
=564MonterreyNuevo León, Mexico 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼26
=573TainanTaiwan, Taiwan 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼31
=573UlsanUlsan, South Korea 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼30
=573Taesal-liChungcheongnam-do, South Korea 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼29
=573Gyeongsan-siGyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼28
=573GdańskPomerania, Poland 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline▼102
=573ComoLombardy, Italy 63 US AQI3.1 times the WHO guideline
=579Bragadirulast full day 10 OctIlfov, Romania 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼52
=579Vranov nad TopľouPrešov Region, Slovakia 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▲187
=579MielecSubcarpathia, Poland 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼95
=579Augustówlast full day 5 OctPodlasie, Poland 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline
=579YongkangTaiwan, Taiwan 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼27
=579YeonilGyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼29
=579ŻaryLubusz, Poland 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼125
=579OpoleOpole Voivodeship, Poland 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼69
=579BrzegOpole Voivodeship, Poland 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼54
=588GwangjuGwangju, South Korea 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼34
=588Laem ChabangChon Buri, Thailand 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼32
=588GyálPest County, Hungary 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼64
=588TrenčínTrenčín Region, Slovakia 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline
=588HadongGyeongsangnam-do, South Korea 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼29
=593ChaniáCrete, Greece 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline
=593Konstancin-JeziornaMazovia, Poland 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼76
=593PyeongchangGangwon-do, South Korea 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼40
=593HaenamJeollanam-do, South Korea 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼38
=593ChinjuGyeongsangnam-do, South Korea 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼32
=593GdyniaPomerania, Poland 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline
=593NikšićOpština Nikšić, Montenegro 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼56
=593San Luis de la Pazlast full day 11 OctGuanajuato, Mexico 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼35

What stands behind each figure: Checked at 2+ sites One reference monitor Low-cost sensors 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), this year to 14 Oct 2026, 06:00 UTC: each city's mean of its daily means, cities measured on 70% or more of the days since 1 January (at least 14). Monitor data from national networks via OpenAQ and the publishers listed at smogrank.com/sources. smogrank.com/rankings?w=year. Ranked on low-cost sensors, with no reference monitor in the city: #2 Faisalabad, #3 Gujranwala and #6 Lahore. Some values from Sensor.Community, ODbL. Some readings from Department of Environment, Nepal; Vietnam's government monitors; 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 06:07 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: Department of Environment, Nepal; Vietnam's government monitors; Aurassure; RMCAB (Secretaría Distrital de Ambiente, Bogotá); Umhverfisstofnun (Environment Agency of Iceland), no reuse terms published (why we use them).