In shale gas reservoirs, adsorbed gas accounts for 85 of the total shale gas in place (GIP). The adsorption isotherms of shale samples are significant for understanding the mechanisms of shale gas storage, primarily for assessing the GIP and developing an accurate gas flow behaviour. Isothermal adsorption experiments primarily determine the adsorption capacity of methane in shale gas reservoirs. However, experimental data is limited due to the heterogeneous properties of shale and extreme reservoir conditions at high pressures and temperatures. This work discusses the effect of total carbon (TOC), pore size distributions, and mineralogical properties on adsorption capacity. In this study, the gravimetric adsorption isotherm measurement method was applied to obtain the adsorption isotherms of methane on four shale core samples from Eagle Ford reservoirs. Four shale core samples with TOC of 9.67 to 14.4 were used. Adsorption experiments were conducted at a temperature of 120 °C and to a maximum pressure of 10 MPa. The data obtained experimentally were compared with adsorption isotherm models to assess each model's applicability in describing the shale adsorption behaviour. A comparison of these models was performed using fitting and error analysis. It was observed that the calculated absolute adsorption of supercritical methane is higher than the excess adsorption. The percentage of differences between the absolute and excess adsorption is more significant at a pressure higher than the critical methane pressure of 9.6. Sample EF C has the highest adsorption capacity of 1.308 mg g�1, followed by EF D 1.194 mg g�1, EF B 0.546 mg g�1, and EF A 0.455 mg g�1. Three statistical error analyses, average relative error (ARE), the Pearson chi-square (�2) test and root mean square error (RMSE) deviation were used to assess the applicability of each model in describing the adsorption behaviour of shale samples. The order of adsorption isotherm fitting with experimental data is Toth > D-R = Freundlich > Langmuir. Error analysis shows that the Toth model has the lowest values compared to other models, 0.6 for EF B, 2.5 for EF C, and 2.2 for EF A and EF D, respectively. © 2022 The Royal Society of Chemistry.