I thank the authors for attending to almost all of the comments from the reviewers. The manuscript is essentially now complete, but I have some suggestions for improving the text. If these changes are made I do not see the need to review the manuscript again and it can be published. There is, however, one problem area still; in section 4 (page 8, lines 17-18) the authors state

“Assuming that the core-tops are modern as explained above, calculated average sedimentation rates vary from 3.4 cm kyr-1 (core 64) to a maximum of 14.7 cm kyr-1 (core 62) (Table 2).”

However, the values in Table 2 range from 3.6 to 17.1. This needs to be corrected.

Suggested changes:
Section 1, p. 2 – suggest run on between lines 12 and 13, as well as between lines 26-27 and lines 29-30.

Page 3, line 1 – I believe you can delete “determined by the complexity” without losing any of the meaning

Page 3, line 15 – I think this should read “”The latter occur in coastal plains and ARE filled with Eemian…”

Page 4 - I suggest reorganizing this page somewhat, by inserting lines 22-27 immediately after line 8, as you are discussing the hydrography first and then moving on to talk about the sedimentation. Then take much of line 30 (“WHICH ITSELF is a result of upwelling dynamics, occasionally driven by passing BC meanders and local wind conditions”) and move it to line 17, so that the third paragraph on this page now reads

“Sedimentation along the southeastern Brazilian continental margin (Fig. 1) is controlled by coastal hydrodynamic processes, which are strongly associated with the local wind-driven current system, by the northward-directed plume of the Río de La Plata on the inner and mid shelf, and by the meandering eddy structure of the southward flowing Brazil Current on the outer shelf, WHICH ITSELF is a result of upwelling dynamics, occasionally driven by passing BC meanders and local wind conditions (de Mahiques et al., 2004; 2008; 2011). Apart from the detection of the presence of sediments derived from the Río de La Plata as far north as 25°S, few studies have addressed material sources, OR transport and sedimentation mechanisms in this region (de Mahiques et al., 2008; Razik et al., 2015). The understanding of sediment sources, transport and deposition is nevertheless of high relevance in this region, because major parts of the continental shelf have originally been considered sediment-starved (Kowsmann and Costa, 1979).”

Then you can delete “and are controlled by local shelf and upper-slope morphology, meandering dynamics of the BC and offshore movement of the Coastal Water (CW) (de Mahiques et al., 2011).” from the existing lines 28-30, as you have just said this in the previous paragraph. The start of the final paragraph will then read:

“Late Holocene sedimentation rates on the continental shelf and slope vary from 2 to 68 cm ka-1. In the southern sector of the shelf, sedimentation is strongly influenced by terrigenous supply from the remote Rio de la Plata outflow,…”

Page 5, line 5 – delete “(24°S)”

Page 5, line 8 – insert “south of” before “28°S” and run on between lines 9 – 10.

Page 5, line 19 – “has developed” not “is developed”

Page 6, line 11 – I think you need to ad something like “and evaporated” after “were added three times” (if this is what you did) or this does not make sense.

Page 8, lines 20-21 – these two lines can be run together.

Fig 1 caption – need to spell out “RdLP” (Rio de la Plata) in the caption.

Thank you for doing this. However, on p.4, the paragraph that starts "The southern Brazilian upper margin..." is still in the wrong place. It should come before the paragraph that starts "Razik et al (2015)..." and not afterwards.

Otherwise it looks fine.

Thanks. Hope you get a lot of reads.