CCL: origin of the electrostatic potential coloring convention ?

Sounds like litmus test colors to me, guys (you know, most basic bench test for acidic/basic solutions, before invention of pH electrodes).
From: owner-chemistry+rduke==email.unc.edu|a|ccl.net [owner-chemistry+rduke==email.unc.edu|a|ccl.net] on behalf of Vivek Sharma vivek.viv.sharma- -gmail.com [owner-chemistry|a|ccl.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:59 AM
To: Duke, Robert E Jr
Subject: CCL: origin of the electrostatic potential coloring convention ?

Hello, i think it may have to do with pH coloring scheme, blue for basic and red for acidic.

Best regards,

Vivek

On Feb 19, 2014 5:26 PM, "Matthieu Montes matthieu.montes .. cnam.fr" <owner-chemistry]![ccl.net> wrote:
Dear CCL subscribers,

I was wondering about the origin of the convention used in computational chemistry for coloring electrostatic potentials (Blue for positive charge, Red for negative charge). Is it originally from the Corey/Pauling coloring of atoms (like blue for nitrogens of positively charged amines and red for oxygens of negatively charged carboxylates ?

The oldest papers regarding this subject that I could find were the Lavery and Pullman's (1981) about electrostatic potential mapped on the solvent accesssible surface area of DNA and the Weiner et al (1982) about mapping electrostatic potential onto the molecular dot surface of biomolecules.. In these papers, the convention about the choice of colors for the potential is already there..

If you can help me address this question, I would be grateful :)

With my very best regards,

Matthieu

--

Matthieu Montes, PhD
Maître de Conférences / Assistant Professor
Laboratoire GBA
Département iMATH
Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers
292 Rue Saint-Martin
75003 Paris, France
http://gba.cnam.fr/