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.

=601Buftealast full day 10 OctIlfov, Romania 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼50
=601ErlinTaiwan, Taiwan 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼25
=601YecheonGyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼36
=601SeosanChungcheongnam-do, South Korea 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼35
=601BusanBusan, South Korea 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼34
=601Jinan-gunlast full day 8 OctJeollabuk-do, South Korea 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼33
=601Nakło nad NoteciąKujawsko-Pomorskie, Poland 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline
=601TulancingoHidalgo, Mexico 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼29
=609Calafatlast full day 10 OctDolj, Romania 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼35
=609Nyíregyházalast full day 21 SeptSzabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg, Hungary 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼46
=609BiałystokPodlasie, Poland 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼91
=609ShakaskraalKwaZulu-Natal, South Africa 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼45
=609NantouTaiwan, Taiwan 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼34
=609SokchoGangwon-do, South Korea 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼32
=609SantyokuGangwon-do, South Korea 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼31
=609VictoriaCentral and Western, Hong Kong 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼40
=609DěčínÚstí nad Labem Region, Czechia 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline
=609Rio ClaroSão Paulo, Brazil 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼38
=609SinanJeollanam-do, South Korea 62 US AQI3.0 times the WHO guideline▼36
=620Piteştilast full day 10 OctArges, Romania 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼38
=620HarareHarare, Zimbabwe 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼37
=620XinyingTaiwan, Taiwan 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼30
=620YeonggwangJeollanam-do, South Korea 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼36
=620Hongch’ŏnGangwon-do, South Korea 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼35
=620Mahlowlast full day 10 OctBrandenburg, Germany 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼74
=620BydgoszczKujawsko-Pomorskie, Poland 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼131
=620CuernavacaMorelos, Mexico 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼40
=620ZapopanJalisco, Mexico 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼33
=620YeongamJeollanam-do, South Korea 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼39
=630CiechanówMazovia, Poland 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼125
=630ŽilinaŽilina Region, Slovakia 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline
=630Moravská Třeboválast full day 11 OctPardubice Region, Czechia 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline
=630RacibórzSilesia, Poland 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼83
=634PrzemyślSubcarpathia, Poland 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼151
=634EłkWarmia-Masuria, Poland 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼130
=634DaejeonDaejeon, South Korea 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼41
=634ChangsuJeollabuk-do, South Korea 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼40
=634HwawŏnDaegu, South Korea 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼39
=634EsztergomKomárom-Esztergom, Hungary 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼55
=634OščadnicaŽilina Region, Slovakia 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline
=634BerounCentral Bohemia, Czechia 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline
=642Voluntarilast full day 10 OctIlfov, Romania 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼50
=642Ohridlast full day 10 OctOhrid, North Macedonia 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼82
=642Hua HinPrachuap Khiri Khan, Thailand 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼46
=642ChanthaburiChanthaburi, Thailand 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼45
=642ChaozhouTaiwan, Taiwan 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼44
=642BresciaLombardy, Italy 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline
=642TulareCalifornia, United States 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▲59
=649Jilavalast full day 10 OctIlfov, Romania 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼48
=649DaeguDaegu, South Korea 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼47
=649GongjuChungcheongnam-do, South Korea 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼42
=649Alcalá de GuadairaAndalusia, Spain 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline
=649BorgomaneroPiedmont, Italy 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline
=649Cadereyta JiménezNuevo León, Mexico 61 US AQI2.9 times the WHO guideline▼45
=655Popeşti-Leordenilast full day 10 OctIlfov, Romania 61 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼55
=655KrosnoSubcarpathia, Poland 61 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline
=655NajuJeollanam-do, South Korea 61 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼52
=655GyőrGyőr-Moson-Sopron, Hungary 61 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼56
=655Kędzierzyn-KoźleOpole Voivodeship, Poland 61 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼69
=655ManlleuCatalonia, Spain 61 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline
=661KielceŚwiętokrzyskie, Poland 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼112
=661JasłoSubcarpathia, Poland 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline
=661IlindenIlinden, North Macedonia 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼72
=661GoseongGyeongsangnam-do, South Korea 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼55
=661HraniceOlomouc Region, Czechia 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline
=661KatowiceSilesia, Poland 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼104
=661TrentoTrentino-Alto Adige, Italy 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline
=661FunzaCundinamarca, Colombia 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline
=661Jurupa ValleyCalifornia, United States 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼50
=670Sha TinSha Tin, Hong Kong 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼58
=670YangjuGyeonggi-do, South Korea 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼53
=670ImsilJeollabuk-do, South Korea 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼56
=670RužomberokŽilina Region, Slovakia 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▲156
=670Hradec KrálovéHradec Králové Region, Czechia 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline
=670SopotPomerania, Poland 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline
=670Jelenia GóraLower Silesia, Poland 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼100
=670Santa Maria A VicoCampania, Italy 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline
=670San Juan del RíoQuerétaro, Mexico 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼60
=679WarsawMazovia, Poland 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼139
=679TaibaoTaiwan, Taiwan 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼55
=679MungyeongGyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼66
=679ChangwonGyeongsangnam-do, South Korea 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼61
=679VallettaValletta, Malta 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼71
=679KościerzynaPomerania, Poland 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼131
=679Nocera InferioreCampania, Italy 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline
=679La Providencia Siglo XXIHidalgo, Mexico 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼58
=687NišCentral Serbia, Serbia 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼33
=687SrinagarJammu and Kashmir, India 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼64
=687PuliTaiwan, Taiwan 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼62
=687NeietsuGangwon-do, South Korea 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼61
=687KunwiGyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼60
=687PortoPorto, Portugal 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼59
=687MartinŽilina Region, Slovakia 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▲191
=687KomárnoNitra Region, Slovakia 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline
=687LitvínovÚstí nad Labem Region, Czechia 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline
=687Cava Dè TirreniCampania, Italy 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline
=687San Pedro SulaCortés Department, Honduras 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼67
=687ChangnyeongGyeongsangnam-do, South Korea 60 US AQI2.8 times the WHO guideline▼58
=699ZhongliaoTaiwan, Taiwan 60 US AQI2.7 times the WHO guideline▼64
=699NaesŏGyeongsangnam-do, South Korea 60 US AQI2.7 times the WHO guideline▼69

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).