Thats a nice table. Thanks for doing the work.
Considering that a 50nm particle has 1000 times as many silver atoms as a 5nm particle, that means for a given ppm of silver, the 50nm size has only .1% of the number of particles. Is it any wonder that smaller particle size is way more effective just due to the greater number of nanoparticles?
Concerning the amount of stabilizer: I think your assumption is true provided that the rate of stabilization is faster than the rate of production. Just like the rate of anode scavenging is important, so is this, but I think it is a safe assumption to make at the low currents we home users make our colloidal silver with. Otherwise, the particles may grow past the safe area faster than they are capped. If that happens, the particles can continue to grow out of control.
Of course, this also assumes the presence of a separate reducing agent, since the lower amount would preclude using the stabilizer as the primary reducing agent.
I know that with some agents, the amount limits the particle size to a maximum, and increasing the amount of stabilizer results in smaller particles. Infinite stabilizer does not result in infinitely small particles though
Another problem is knowing the molecular weight of the stabilizer. Some are not defined. Lecithin for example exists in many variations depending on the source. Maltodextrin exists in various forms with different molecular weights. Gelatin is another.
Lecithin has published MWs varying from 600 to 800 daltons for example.