Primary evidence product · England 30-day official monitoring review
National coverage criteria met
What England's monitoring data showed
This Air Quality Project analysed 9,570 valid station-days from 142 reporting stations, covering 9 of 9 English regions between 2026-06-30 and 2026-07-29.
Descriptive pollutant findings
These are measured 30-day station and regional patterns. They are not source-attribution, exposure, health or legal-compliance findings.
Manchester Piccadilly · North West · 30 valid days
Highest eligible regional median: South West (6.93 µg/m³).
WHO-context station-days: 179
London Harlington · London · 30 valid days
Highest eligible regional median: South West (15.27 µg/m³).
WHO-context station-days: 5
Luton A505 Roadside · East of England · 30 valid days
Highest eligible regional median: East Midlands (10.19 µg/m³).
WHO-context station-days: 85
Interpretation boundary: provisional official monitoring evidence; WHO guideline comparisons are contextual and are not UK legal exceedance counts.
Evidence pathways for science, public health, policy, journalism and communities
This Air Quality Project separates the successful England 30-day review from the current live episode screen and provides routes to data, methods, provenance, corrections and external review.
Use the evidence External review pack Contact and corrections
9/9 regions · 142/142 stations · 9,570 station-days · 96.8% completeness.
CURRENT ASSESSMENT UNAVAILABLE
Monitoring data were delayed. This screen cannot determine whether a current episode occurred. It is not evidence that air was clean, safe or that no event occurred.
No current environmental episode assessment was possible because no selected monitoring site met the freshness threshold. The newest accepted reporting-site observation was 11.7 hours old at collection.
Evidence acquisition: PASSED. 11 configured joins remain pending or blocked. This live screen is separate from the 30-day England AURN review. Screening evidence only; no source attribution, legal or health finding.
Current data service
Live episode assessment paused — monitoring observations were delayed
The current feed did not meet the four-hour episode-screen freshness rule. The newest accepted reporting-site observation was 11.7 hours old at collection. This is a data-availability status, not evidence that air was clean or that no event occurred.
Evidence acquired and classified
What the platform successfully collected this run
13 source streams reached connectivity or a stronger stage. Each source remains separately labelled by evidence role and validation maturity.
Record counts belong to different evidence classes and are not added together as a single scientific total. Downloaded context is not automatically treated as validated environmental evidence.
Official monitoring network
171 active AURN sites discovered across England
The public review distinguishes active sites, configured pollutant streams, reporting stations and station-day completeness. Monitoring evidence is shown separately from the a supplementary context layer.
Explore station and regional results Open monitoring and context map
How this review now works
Official monitoring data leads. No standing facility review was activated.
The England-wide monitoring screen runs first. Because no fresh screening event fixed a time window and geographic footprint, no configured facility was queried or promoted into the active review.
No event · no facility query. Proximity and register matches remain context only and cannot establish contribution.
Current measurements
Inspect official PM2.5 and PM10 coverage, data-quality exclusions, screening observations and cross-source execution in one public dashboard.
Explore current statusDaily Air-Quality Evidence Status
Read a public summary organised around what changed, what was checked, what remains uncertain and what evidence is required next.
Read the weekly briefingMethod and provenance
Review acquisition, quality control, statistical screening, evidence linkage and hard claim boundaries in reproducible detail.
Review methodsForensic scientific evidence review
Inspect evidence coverage, freshness, source maturity, executed cross-references, uncertainty and explicit non-conclusions.
AI and model assurance
Review current deterministic execution, prohibited automated uses, evaluation gates and model provenance.
Scientific evidence and software assurance are different
Scientific evidence
Measurements, station and regional coverage, descriptive calculations, source records and stated limitations are the evidence available for review.
Engineering assurance
Automated checks confirm that the pipeline followed its declared rules. They do not constitute peer review, accreditation, regulatory approval or institutional endorsement.