TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
How bad is Jakarta's air pollution? 'Not that bad', says city agency
The different standards used in measuring Jakarta's air quality cast a haze over how healthy or unhealthy it is to live in the nation's capital.
Change Size
Misty haze: Skyscrapers in downtown Jakarta appear suspended in a thick fog of haze in this undated file photo. The capital's environment agency touts its data as more accurate than those of apps that use the US air quality index (ADI) standard. (Shutterstock/Creative Images)
J
akarta is suffocating in its unhealthy air, several netizens pronounced last week, referring to data on air quality monitoring apps. But the city administration presented different data, saying that it was not that bad.
According to air quality monitoring software Air Visual, Jakarta scored 240 on the Air Quality Index (AQI) on the morning of June 25, which indicates "very unhealthy" air quality and is color coded purple – the fifth in the six-level index that ranges fro "good" to "hazardous". It also meant that Jakarta had the worst air quality in the world on that morning.
Air quality is generally measured according to particle pollution, or the density of tiny solid particles and liquid droplets – particulate matter, abbreviated PM – that are suspended in the air.
Air Visual recorded on Tuesday that the nation's capital had a concentration of 189.9 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m³) of PM2.5 – fine particulate matter believed to be hazardous to human health. The level declined to "unhealthy" several hours later.
Another app, Air Matters, showed that the AQI at about 10:30 a.m. on the same morning day was 162, or "unhealthy".
Different standards
The Jakarta Environmental Agency, however, presented different data. Its acting head, Andono Warih, said in a press release that the Air Visual data was not entirely accurate and that the condition was "not that bad".
