All 2,504 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.

=596LincolnwoodIllinois, United States 54 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲329
=596HollandMichigan, United States 54 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲148
=596ToledoOhio, United States 54 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲812
=596ClovisCalifornia, United States 54 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼14
=605TratTrat, Thailand 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼149
=605NajuJeollanam-do, South Korea 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼446
=605GwangjuGwangju, South Korea 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼371
=605YanaiYamaguchi, Japan 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼206
=605KureHiroshima, Japan 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼294
=605ValdostaGeorgia, United States 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲565
=605MuncieIndiana, United States 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲599
=605Ann Arborlow-cost sensorsMichigan, United States 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲506
=605AltoonaWisconsin, United States 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼68
=605San LeandroCalifornia, United States 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼98
=605Mango HillQueensland, Australia 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲252
=605AmaAichi, Japan 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼267
=617Moscowlow-cost sensorsMoscow, Russia 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline
=617NangenJeollabuk-do, South Korea 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼366
=617OyamaTochigi, Japan 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼51
=617KurashikiOkayama, Japan 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼108
=617KagoshimaKagoshima, Japan 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲316
=617Natori-shiMiyagi, Japan 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼250
=617Upper AltonIllinois, United States 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲7
=617DoltonIllinois, United States 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲234
=617FresnoCalifornia, United States 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼57
=617Arden-ArcadeCalifornia, United States 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲75
=617HadongGyeongsangnam-do, South Korea 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼296
=628Vanadzorlow-cost sensorsLori, Armenia 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline
=628AranyaprathetSa Kaeo, Thailand 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲989
=628KuryeJeollanam-do, South Korea 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼289
=628TakamatsuKagawa, Japan 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼83
=628KashiwaraNara, Japan 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲46
=628HakodateHokkaido, Japan 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲277
=628DecaturIllinois, United States 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲375
=628RochesterMinnesota, United States 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline
=628AzaminoKanagawa, Japan 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼29
=628AyaseKanagawa, Japan 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼12
=638Krasnodarlow-cost sensorsKrasnodar Krai, Russia 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline
=638KikindaVojvodina, Serbia 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲42
=638HayangGyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼251
=638TokyoTokyo, Japan 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲4
=638Tagajō-shiMiyagi, Japan 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼164
=638SakamotoMiyagi, Japan 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼184
=638Apple ValleyMinnesota, United States 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼171
=638YamatoKanagawa, Japan 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲41
=646ChangsuJeollabuk-do, South Korea 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼240
=646YawataKyoto, Japan 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline
=646MachidaTokyo, Japan 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲67
=646HagiYamaguchi, Japan 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲17
=646AomoriAomori, Japan 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼200
=646Sindelfingenlow-cost sensorsBaden-Wurttemberg, Germany 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline
=646ŽarnovicaBanská Bystrica Region, Slovakia 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼34
=646NapervilleIllinois, United States 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲371
=646Royal Oaklow-cost sensorsMichigan, United States 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲1480
=646MercedCalifornia, United States 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲228
=646GuelphOntario, Canada 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲720
=646HigashimurayamaTokyo, Japan 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼48
=646YufuOita, Japan 53 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline
=659KimitsuChiba, Japan 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼56
=659MatsuyamaEhime, Japan 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼186
=659ŠahyNitra Region, Slovakia 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲375
=659MartinŽilina Region, Slovakia 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲376
=659WrocławLower Silesia, Poland 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲210
=659PeoriaIllinois, United States 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲347
=659FuchūTokyo, Japan 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼2
=659ShikokuchūōEhime, Japan 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼173
=667ZamośćLublin, Poland 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼37
=667JarosławSubcarpathia, Poland 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲173
=667ImsilJeollabuk-do, South Korea 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼520
=667UtsunomiyaTochigi, Japan 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼48
=667NagasakiNagasaki, Japan 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲321
=667LiverpoolNew South Wales, Australia 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼132
=667Norderstedtlow-cost sensorsSchleswig-Holstein, Germany 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline
=667DaytonOhio, United States 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲639
=667DetroitMichigan, United States 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲980
=667BlaineMinnesota, United States 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼265
=667Green BayWisconsin, United States 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▲524
=667Yuba CityCalifornia, United States 52 US AQI0.7 times the WHO guideline▼113
=679TrangTrang, Thailand 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▼202
=679MasanGwangju, South Korea 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▼471
=679Cheongsong gunGyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▼148
=679SōjaOkayama, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▼161
=679KamakuraKanagawa, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲19
=679IchinomiyaAichi, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▼78
=679UwajimaEhime, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲236
=679IwakiFukushima, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲121
=679ZgierzŁódź Voivodeship, Poland 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▼41
=679ŁódźŁódź Voivodeship, Poland 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲9
=679KutinaSisak-Moslavina, Croatia 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲114
=679ElginIllinois, United States 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲300
=679Evanstonlow-cost sensorsIllinois, United States 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲359
=679RockfordIllinois, United States 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲339
=679Santa CruzCalifornia, United States 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲29
=679TorontoOntario, Canada 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲894
=679KizugawaKyoto, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲104
=679AridaWakayama, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▼95
=679GotōNagasaki, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▲179
=698KashiwaChiba, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▼47
=698AshikagaTochigi, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▼140
=698MookaTochigi, Japan 52 US AQI0.6 times the WHO guideline▼107

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 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, 03:00 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, #4 Dubai, #6 Dhaka, #7 Multan, #8 Gujranwala, #9 Faisalabad and #10 Lahore. 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), 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 03:07 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), no reuse terms published (why we use them).