The authors have responded to all reviewer comments, and the revised manuscript is almost ready for publication.

The addition of references by Dianov-Klokov (1959, 1964) (reviewer#2) provides an independent data set to compare the central wavelengths, and relative intensities determined in this work. The revised text now cites these papers, and refers to Table 2 for an overview of available literature values. However, Table 2 of the revised manuscript does not include the actual values from these important references. How do they compare? A few sentences discussing whether the rel int in liquid oxygen actually compare with those in the gas-phase would be valuable, but such discussion is currently missing. Can these data be used to reduce the uncertainty of the estimated cross-sections? Finally, any recommendations for future laboratory work that might arise from this comparison should be spelled out.

On a more technical note, the individual columns in the section 'rel int' of Table 2 currently do not yet use common units. Only the relative intensity matters in context of the presented work. A common set of units will make the comparison of earlier studies more direct, and help inform the above discussion.

Please check and use a consistent number of significant figures for reporting the cross-section values and their uncertainties (e.g., see abstract, and throughout the paper).

These changes should be straightforward, and will benefit the final quality of the paper.

The paper is accepted for publication, subject to one technical correction.

The number of significant figures used to report the error of the xs_328nm value still does not match the number of significant figures of the xs_328nm. Please check the abstract, conclusions, and the main text. This can be corrected in preparing files for typesetting.

Congratulations!
-Rainer Volkamer